Bain v Police - [2025] NZHC 1680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2025-425-000018

[2025] NZHC 1680

BETWEEN
TANGEE ANN BAIN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 June 2025

Appearances:

T J McCullum for Appellant M B Brownlie for Respondent

Judgment:

24 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 June 2025 at 10.30 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

BAIN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1680 [24 June 2025]

The appeal

[1] Tangee Ann Bain (aka Read) appeals her sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment imposed in the District Court at Invercargill on 11 March 2025.1

[2] Ms Bain has a lengthy history of appearances before the court, including for shoplifting. The sentence was imposed after she admitted a further series of shoplifting offending across a six-week period, giving rise to nine charges:

(a)burglary (x 4);2

(b)theft under $500 (x 4);3 and

(c)theft between $500–1000 (x1).4

[3] Ms Bain says the sentence was manifestly excessive, as both the starting point adopted and uplift for prior convictions were excessive, and insufficient credit was given for mitigating factors.

Offending

[4]The facts are laid out in full in the decision of Judge M S Williams.5

[5] Prior to the current offending, as a result of prior shoplifting incidents, Ms Bain was served with trespass notices excluding her from various large supermarkets and other Southland retailers.

[6] In summary, on nine occasions between 13 October 2024 and 4 December 2024 Ms Bain shoplifted from large retailers, at various Southland premises of The Warehouse, Mitre 10, New World and Woolworths. The offending generally involved Ms Bain spending some time in the store, often gathering some items and concealing others, before exiting without paying for the concealed items. On occasions she

1      Police v Bain [2025] NZDC 6797.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 219 and 223(c); maximum penalty one year imprisonment.
5      Police v Bain, above n 1, at [3]–[16].

abandoned other goods she had readied to steal. When offending occurred at premises from which Ms Bain had previously been trespassed it was charged as burglary.

[7] The first burglary was the first in the sequence. On 13 October, Ms Bain was seen and observed on CCTV at The Warehouse in Invercargill, during which time staff could see items had disappeared from her basket. When challenged, she refused to co-operate to allow her bag to be checked and left the store failing to pay for items she had in her bag. The total amount of items taken, including men’s underwear and a Lynx men’s gift set, were valued at $58.

[8] Notably, on 24 November, Ms Bain stole $258.95 of batteries and rotary tools from Mitre 10 and, in the second burglary offence, stole $1,217.26 of groceries from New World (from where she was trespassed). On that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bain v Police

Details

AGLC: Bain v Police [2025] NZHC 1680
Case: [2025] NZHC 1680
Decision Date: 24 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tangee Ann Bain appeals the sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment imposed in the District Court at Invercargill on 11 March 2025. Ms Bain was sentenced for a series of shoplifting offences that occurred across a six-week period, resulting in nine charges. Ms Bain submits the sentence was manifestly excessive, as both the starting point adopted and uplift for prior convictions were excessive and insufficient credit was given for mitigating factors. The legal issue in this case is whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Court considered the starting point adopted by the District Court Judge, which was significantly out of step with starting points in comparable cases. The Court found that a starting point of 12 months on the lead burglary offending (the 4 December offences), with an uplift of three months for the remainder of the thefts, was appropriate. The Court also considered the deductions for mitigating factors, including addiction. The Court found that a total deduction of 25 per cent for the guilty plea and 10 per cent for the addiction and other background factors was appropriate. The Court found that a three-month uplift for previous convictions was appropriate. The Court found that the sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive, and the appropriate end sentence was 12 months’ imprisonment. The appeal is allowed in part, and the remaining sentences imposed are quashed, and sentence imposed in substitution. The reparation order for $1,929.68 remains.

Orders