Castillano v The King - [2025] NZHC 1854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-336

[2025] NZHC 1854

BETWEEN
ANTONIO CASTILLANO

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 30 June 2025

Appearances:

M W Ryan for Appellant R N Benic for Respondent

Judgment:

9 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 09 July 2025 at 10 am.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
M W Ryan, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Auckland

CASTILLANO v R [2025] NZHC 1854 [9 July 2025]

Introduction

[1] Antonio Castillano appeals an end sentence of four years and two months’ imprisonment,1 following guilty pleas to charges of:

(a)criminal harassment (x 9);2

(b)causing harm by posting digital communication;3 and

(c)obtaining by deception (representative).4

[2] Mr Castillano initially sought to appeal both conviction and sentence. The conviction appeal has since been abandoned — Mr Castillano now solely seeks to appeal his sentence on the basis it is manifestly excessive.

The offending

[3] Mr Castillano has an extensive number of aliases. His offending was conducted through numerous Facebook accounts in various names, which he utilised to harass the victims.

Victim ‘M’

[4] In August 2020, Mr Castillano met the first victim M through Tinder and began messaging her. When the contact graduated to video chat, M realised that Mr Castillano was not the person depicted in his profile picture. M had mentioned to Mr Castillano that she was renting out a carpark at her apartment and Mr Castillano expressed an interest. M met Mr Castillano at her apartment to view the carpark. Ultimately, she decided not to rent the carpark to him as she did not feel comfortable around him.

[5] Between August 2020 and August 2021, Mr Castillano engaged in a harassing pattern of behaviour toward M. This involved sending M multiple Facebook friend

1      R v Castillano [2024] NZDC 14915.
2      Harassment Act 1997, s 8(1)(b). Maximum penalty: two years’ imprisonment.
3      Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, s 22. Maximum penalty: two years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act 1961, ss 240(1)(a) and (a). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.

requests from multiple accounts, as well as her mother. After M asked Mr Castillano to stop, he began sending M upwards of 10 requests every day from various accounts.

[6] On 1 September 2020, Mr Castillano then sent M a message accompanied by screenshots of a Facebook post which contained M’s name, photograph, phone number, address and falsely advertising that she was a prostitute. M was contacted multiple times enquiring after sexual services as a result.

[7] On 22 September 2020, M noticed Mr Castillano was outside her home and taking photos using a wide lens camera for several hours. Over the next few months, M also observed Mr Castillano lurking around her address and taking photographs with his phone.

[8] Between March and April 2021, Mr Castillano entered M’s apartment building and slipped four handwritten notes under her door. The notes were all threatening in nature and continued to falsely accuse M of…

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 Castillano v The King

Details

AGLC: Castillano v The King [2025] NZHC 1854
Case: [2025] NZHC 1854
Decision Date: 9 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Antonio Castillano appeals against his sentence of four years and two months’ imprisonment, following his guilty pleas to various charges of criminal harassment, causing harm by posting digital communication, and obtaining by deception. Castillano argues that his sentence is manifestly excessive. The court first examines the legal framework governing sentence appeals, noting that such appeals are permissible if there is an error in the sentence imposed and a different sentence should be imposed. Otherwise, the appeal must be dismissed.

Castillano raises several grounds for appeal, primarily contesting the uplifts applied to his sentence, the adequacy of the guilty plea discount, and the appropriateness of the discounts for remorse and rehabilitation. He also argues for a greater discount for his personal background factors. The Crown counters that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the discounts applied were appropriate, particularly considering the need to protect public safety given Castillano's extensive history of similar offending.

The court finds that the sentence imposed was well within the range available to the sentencing judge. The uplifts applied for the multiple victims and the obtaining by deception charge were reasonable, especially given the recidivist nature of Castillano’s offending. The guilty plea discount, while not as high as Castillano desired, was appropriate considering the late stage at which the pleas were entered. The court also rejects the argument for additional discounts for remorse and rehabilitation, finding that Castillano's history of offending and lack of genuine remorse do not warrant such reductions. Finally, the court affirms that the discount for personal background factors was appropriate, balancing Castillano’s difficult upbringing against the need to protect the community from his continued harmful behaviour.

The appeal is dismissed, and the original sentence is upheld.

Orders