[1] Thomas Bates appeals a sentence of two years’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Kellar on 20 May 20251 on charges of possession of an offensive weapon2 and causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure.3 He says the Judge erred in uplifting his sentence for the previous conviction of possessing an offensive weapon, and that insufficient credit was given for mitigating factors, leading to a manifestly excessive end sentence.

Facts

[2] The facts leading to the charge of possession of an offensive weapon are that on 1 August 2024, the appellant was driving his vehicle in Christchurch. He had a disagreement with another road user. He stopped his vehicle at the intersection of Main North Road and Queen Elizabeth II Drive and left it with a metal fish bat in his hand. He ran after the other vehicle, which also came to a stop and the two occupants got out of their vehicle. The appellant approached them and raised the bat over his head. He waved the bat and his other hand in a threatening manner, before walking away.

[3] The facts of the wounding with intent to injure charge are that, on 18 October 2024, a Police Safety Order was served on the appellant, protecting the victim and his mother. The victim is the appellant’s nephew. At the time, the appellant was also subject to bail for the possession of an offensive weapon charge and to sentence for previous family violence offending.

[4] On 19 October 2024, the victim was walking his dog along a railway line in Redwood, Christchurch. The appellant and his two daughters were walking along the pathway. The appellant approached the victim from behind and yelled out “hey pussy”. The victim told the appellant that he did not want to fight in front of the appellant’s daughters. The victim and the appellant then pushed one another, before the victim told the appellant it wasn’t worth it and started to walk away. As the victim

1      R v Bates [2025] NZDC 11252.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(a); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 188(2); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

turned away, the appellant struck him with a closed fist to the right-hand side of the face. The victim lost consciousness and woke a short time later on the footpath. The victim sustained a fractured jaw in two places and fractures to his right eye socket. The victim had to undergo facial reconstruction surgery and suffers ongoing…

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 Bates v The King

Details

AGLC: Bates v The King [2025] NZHC 2082
Case: [2025] NZHC 2082
Decision Date: 28 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thomas Bates appeals the two-year imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge Kellar on 20 May 2025 for possession of an offensive weapon and causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure. The appellant contends the Judge erred in uplifting his sentence for the previous conviction of possessing an offensive weapon, and that insufficient credit was given for mitigating factors, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. The legal issues the Court was required to decide were whether the starting points for each offence were appropriate, whether the deductions for parental incarceration, remorse, and background factors were adequate, and whether the uplift for the previous conviction was justified. The Court considered that while the starting points could have been greater, they were within range. The Court found the deductions for parental incarceration and remorse were appropriate, but that a higher deduction could have been given for background factors. The Court also found that the uplift for the previous conviction was not warranted as a result of that conviction alone, but was justified when considering the appellant’s history of violence offending. The Court concluded that the end sentence of two years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders