Bakulich v Police - [2025] NZHC 2939

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-193

[2025] NZHC 2939

BETWEEN
FIONA BAKULICH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 30 September 2025

Counsel:

S J Gray and L L Tu’i for appellant K H M Nihill for respondent

Judgment:

7 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF JOHNSTONE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 October 2025 at 11.30 am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: MC, Auckland

BAKULICH v POLICE [2025] NZHC 2939 [7 October 2025]

[1] Fiona Bakulich was sentenced in the District Court at Auckland, on 12 charges of obtaining by deception1 and one of misconduct with human remains,2 to two years and three months’ imprisonment.3 She appeals against that sentence.

[2] Assessing the substantive merit of an appeal requires consideration whether, for any reason, there was a sentencing error such that a different sentence should be imposed.4 It must be shown that the sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, or that there are exceptional circumstances requiring the correction of an in-range sentence.5

[3] Ms Bakulich does not challenge the starting point of three years’ imprisonment, which the sentencing Judge selected so that her sentence would reflect the seriousness of her offending. But she says that the reductions that were applied, to tailor the sentence to her own circumstances as an individual, were not adequate. In particular, she says:

(a)Her poor mental health, and the compounding effect of widespread publicity relating to her prosecution, makes the sentence disproportionately severe. To account for these issues, the sentencing Judge should have applied a reduction of at least 15 per cent.

(b)A further reduction, of up to 15 per cent, should have been considered, as a response to Ms Bakulich’s background, which included early exposure to familial dysfunction and dysregulated behaviour.

(c)The sentencing Judge erred by finding Ms Bakulich undeserving of a distinct five per cent reduction for her genuine remorse.

1      For nine charges: Crimes Act 1961, ss 240(1)(a) and 241(b). Maximum penalty: one year’s imprisonment. For remaining three charges: Crimes Act, ss 240(1)(a) and 241(a). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, s 150(a). Maximum penalty: two years’ imprisonment.
3      R v Bakulich [2025] NZDC 7898.
4      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.
5      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [30]–[36], Te Aho v R [2013] NZCA
47 at [30].

(d)Had the sentencing calculations included all proper reductions for individual circumstances, they would have permitted a sentence of home detention, which should then have been imposed.

[4] Based on these arguments, Ms Bakulich says that her prison sentence should be quashed, and a home detention sentence imposed in its place. I will return to the arguments after describing Ms Bakulich’s offending, the sentence imposed on her, and her application for leave to adduce evidence on appeal.

Ms Bakulich’s offending

[5] Ms Bakulich worked for Tipene Funerals as a funeral director. She dealt directly with bereaved families, and with the cremation,…

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 Bakulich v Police

Details

AGLC: Bakulich v Police [2025] NZHC 2939
Case: [2025] NZHC 2939
Decision Date: 7 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bakulich v Police, the appellant, Fiona Bakulich, appealed against her sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment for obtaining by deception and misconduct with human remains. The legal issues to be decided were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, or if there were exceptional circumstances that required a correction of an in-range sentence. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionately severe due to her poor mental health and the compounding effect of widespread publicity relating to her prosecution, which warranted a reduction of at least 15 per cent. She also claimed that a further reduction should have been considered in response to her background, including early exposure to familial dysfunction and dysregulated behaviour. Additionally, the appellant argued that the sentencing judge erred by finding her undeserving of a distinct five per cent reduction for her genuine remorse.

The court found that Ms Bakulich was entitled to a meaningful reduction from the adjusted starting point, calibrated to account for the disproportionately severe impact upon her of a sentence of imprisonment, arising because of her poor pre-sentencing mental health and the compounding effect of vitriolic publicity of her offending and personal deficiencies. The court also accepted that Ms Bakulich was genuinely remorseful and that the five per cent reduction for her reparation offer was inadequate. The court determined that combining these flaws in the sentencing, it was manifestly excessive, and a further reduction of 15 per cent should have been applied. Had this further reduction been applied, the notional end sentence would have been one of one year and nine months’ imprisonment. A notional sentence of that length would have qualified for conversion to a sentence of home detention. The court substituted a sentence of four months’ home detention to commence on 8 October 2025, subject to the standard post-detention conditions set out in s 80O of the Sentencing Act, which will expire on 8 February 2026.

The final orders were that Ms Bakulich's appeal was allowed, her original sentence of imprisonment was quashed and replaced with a sentence of four months’ home detention, to commence on 8 October 2025, be served at the address specified in the PAC report dated 2 April 2025, and be subject to the standard post-detention conditions set out in s 80O of the Sentencing Act.

Orders