Barron v The King

[2025] NZHC 2531

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-344

CRI-2025-404-345 [2025] NZHC 2531

BETWEEN

HAYDEN BARRON

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing:

2 September 2025

Appearances:

P Masani for Appellant

C F Hodgson for Respondent

Judgment:

2 September 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

[Appeal against sentence]

Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, Auckland Counsel:           P Masani, New Lynn, Auckland

BARRON v R [2025] NZHC 2531 [2 September 2025]

[1]    Hayden Barron pleaded guilty to two representative charges of breaching a protection order, and charges of assaulting a person in a family relationship, seven charges of theft, obtaining by deception, receiving and one charge of shoplifting. On 3 June 2025, Judge S J Lance sentenced Mr Barron to 28 months’ imprisonment.1 Mr Barron appeals the sentence. He accepts the sentence of imprisonment was the least restrictive outcome but submits the term of 28 months was itself manifestly excessive.

[2]    The Judge referred to the offending in his sentencing notes in relation to the family violence as psychologically abusing the victim between June 2023 and November 2023, often calling her a whore, and threatening to pimp her out. On one of the occasions Mr Barron assaulted her by throwing a cigarette at her head and twisting her arm. He also had unauthorised contact with her by sending a series of verbally abusive messages between November 2023 and August 2024. In addition to that family violence offending, Mr Barron stole items from New World to a value of

$133.50. The obtaining by deception involved a rather strange incident of hiring a van through Facebook Marketplace and then damaging it. The receiving related to a paraglider which had been stolen which Mr Barron attempt to resell. Then there were several charges of theft from various Bunnings stores and a Guthrie Bowron store together with petrol from two petrol stations.

[3]    The Judge considered a starting point of 21 months for the domestic violence offending was appropriate and uplifted that by 15 months to take account of all the other offending resulting in a total of 36 months for a start point. The Judge then allowed credits of 20 per cent for the guilty plea (which he considered generous, but which was the agreed position); five per cent for a successful restorative justice meeting with the victim of the domestic abuse and remorse; five per cent for personal background, noting he had been subjected to abuse and violence himself; and five per cent for his attempts at rehabilitation. In total the discounts amounted to 35 per cent. Rounded up to Mr Barron’s benefit that led to the end nominal sentence of 23 months. The Judge uplifted that by four months to take account of the previous convictions, which disclosed a propensity for that type of offending and that some of the offending had occurred whilst on bail. The Judge then also remitted all Mr Barron’s fines to give

1      R v Barron [2025] NZDC 12323.

him a clean slate on release from prison and added one further month to reflect that. That led to the end sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment.

[4]    In support of the appeal in his helpful submissions Mr Masani submits that while accepting the imprisonment was the least restrictive sentence Mr Barron should have received 10 per cent for his participation in the restorative justice meeting which was successful and an additional separate five per cent for his demonstrated remorse. He also suggested 10 per cent for the efforts at rehabilitation could have been applied which would have led to a 50 per cent deduction rather than the 35 per cent applied by the Judge. Accepting the other uplifts applied by the Judge on his calculations that would have led to a sentence of 23 months’ imprisonment, which he submitted was significant in the circumstances and could not be described as tinkering. I agree with Mr Masani’s submission to the extent that if the end result of an appropriate sentence was 23 months’ imprisonment as opposed to 28 then such an adjustment could not be described as tinkering.

Approach to sentence

[5]    The appeal is brought under Part 6, subpart 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA). This Court must allow the appeal if satisfied that, for any reason, there is an error in the sentence imposed upon conviction and a different sentence should be imposed.

[6]    In Tutakangahau v R the Court of Appeal confirmed that s 250(2) of the CPA was not intended to change the approach to appeals against sentence.2 It still remains for an appellant to satisfy the appeal Court that the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The focus remains on whether the sentence was within range rather than the process by which it is reached.

[7]    Counsel referred to R v Harrison where the Court had applied a 10 per cent discount for restorative justice.3 Mr Harrison had acknowledged the summary of facts, had understood the consequences of his actions and taken responsibility for his

2      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279 at [26].

3      R v Harrison [2002] NZHC 801.

behaviour. The Court suggested that there could be discounts of five per cent for restorative justice and remorse where the offender continued to blame the victim to some extent, perhaps eight to 10 per cent where the offender demonstrated sincere remorse and earned the victim’s forgiveness, and  in extreme circumstances even    15 per cent might be appropriate. In R v Harrison the Court accepted 10 per cent reflected Mr Harrison’s remorse and the successful restorative justice efforts.

[8]    There are a number of other cases that deal with this issue. In Bolt v Police, for example, Mr Bolt had sought a 10 per cent discount for completing a restorative justice conference but the Court only awarded five per cent.4 It appeared that Mr Bolt continued to demonstrate a lack of insight. In R v Pan Mr Pan received a 10 per cent discount for completing a restorative justice conference.5 He had however demonstrated deep remorse and paid reparation of $15,000. In R v Martin in “extraordinary” circumstances the defendant was awarded 15 per cent discount for participation in an extremely successful restorative justice conference and forgiveness by the family members affected by his offending.6

[9]    In the present case the submission for an uplift overall for the restorative justice conference overlooks that the conference was with the victim of the domestic offending. The Judge had taken a starting point of 21 months for that offending. There was no restorative justice meeting for the balance of the offending. Even if something approaching the 10 per cent, between eight to 10 per cent was applied for the successful restorative justice conference bearing in mind the victim’s views, as it would be applied to the 21 months it would only lead to a modest benefit to Mr Barron.

[10]   As to remorse the Judge was entitled to take the view there was no need to separately provide for remorse in relation to that offending other than in the context of the allowance for the restorative justice conference, particularly given the comments in the PAC report that referred to the other offending. As the Judge noted Mr Barron displayed a “mixed” attitude to his dishonesty offending which revealed a combination

4      Bolt v Police [2021] NZHC 1966.

5      R v Pan [2020] NZHC 2342.

6      R v Martin [2017] NZHC 1571.

of remorse, defensiveness and reluctance to fully acknowledge his role during the offending.

[11]No separate allowance for remorse was appropriate for that offending.

[12]   In relation to the prospects of rehabilitation where Mr Masani had argued for an increase to 10 per cent it is relevant I accept as the Crown submits that Mr Barron is aged 41 and has an extensive list of previous convictions. Mr Barron has had numerous opportunities to rehabilitate. In the circumstances his current efforts at rehabilitation can carry little weight and the five per cent allowed was appropriate.

[13]   Looking at the matter overall the combined deductions applied to the adjusted start point (taking account of all the offending) of 35 per cent, including what could be regarded as a generous guilty plea discount of 20 per cent, was well within the range for all mitigating factors.

[14]   Standing back and looking at the offending overall and Mr Barron’s personal circumstances the sentence of 28 months cannot be regarded as manifestly excessive.

[15]The appeal must be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

Venning J