Legal Research
Cases
Collins-Roberts v The King

Collins-Roberts v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 2448 27 August 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2025-412-30

[2025] NZHC 2448

BETWEEN
DONALD NOEL COLLINS-ROBERTS

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 25 August 2025

Appearances:

N L Rayner for Appellant J C Collins for Respondent

Judgment:

27 August 2025

Reissued:

14 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 August 2025 at 9.45 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

COLLINS-ROBERTS v R [2025] NZHC 2448 [27 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] Following a sentence indication on 25 October 2024,1 Donald Collins-Roberts (aged 40) pleaded guilty to three charges of injuring with intent to injure;2 one charge of assault with intent to injure;3 and one charge of demanding with menaces.4 The injuring with intent to injure and assault with intent to injure charges were jointly charged against Mr Collins-Roberts and his four co-defendants.

[2] Mr Collins-Roberts accepted the sentencing indication on 5 November 2024 and was sentenced by Judge Robinson to three years and five months’ imprisonment on 20 March 2025.5 Mr Collins-Roberts now appeals that sentence on the ground that insufficient deductions were made for his personal mitigating factors, particularly his remorse and his background.

Facts

[3] At approximately 11.20 pm on 2 March 2024, the victims were at a 21st birthday party at a property in North Dunedin. Three vehicles stopped on the street and Mr Collins-Roberts’ and his four co-offenders (including Mr Rakete) each wearing Mongrel Mob patches, approached the victims. They entered through the gate onto the property in an intimidating and confronting way. The victims offered the group seafood to try and get them to leave.

[4] Mr Collins-Roberts asked the victims for their socks and said, “If you’re not going to give us your socks we want your bitches”, giving rise to the charge of demanding with menaces.

[5] After approximately five minutes, Mr Collins-Roberts and his co-offenders left the property, telling the victims they would be back tomorrow night for a fight. They got back into the vehicles they arrived in. One of the victims (victim one) then walked towards the vehicles. Mr Rakete then got out of the vehicle and punched victim one’s

1      R v Ataria DC Dunedin CRI-2024-012-000433, 25 October 2024 (sentencing indication).
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 189(2) and 66—maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, ss 193 and 66—maximum penalty: three years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, s 239(2)—maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
5      Police v Roberts [2025] NZDC 7045.

head. Serious and unprovoked violence against the victims then ensued, it having been instigated by Mr Rakete. Mr Collins-Roberts forcefully kicked victim one about the head while that victim was lying on the ground. He then swiftly and vigorously stomped on victim one’s head.

[6] Victim four, having just found his feet after being king hit by Mr Rakete, was confronted aggressively by Mr Collins-Roberts who pushed him and punched him about the head. Mr Collins-Roberts is…

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 Collins-Roberts v The King

Details

AGLC: Collins-Roberts v The King [2025] NZHC 2448
Case: [2025] NZHC 2448
Decision Date: 27 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Collins-Roberts v The King, Donald Collins-Roberts, the appellant, was convicted of multiple charges including injuring with intent to injure, assault with intent to injure, and demanding with menaces. He appealed his sentence of three years and five months’ imprisonment, arguing that insufficient deductions were made for his personal mitigating factors, particularly his remorse and background. The court was required to determine whether the District Court Judge erred in the imposition of the sentence and if a different sentence should be imposed.

The court analyzed the appellant's arguments regarding his remorse and background factors, which were highlighted as significant mitigating circumstances in his appeal. The court acknowledged that the appellant's apology letter demonstrated some level of remorse but found that his actions, such as his continued association with the Mongrel Mob and his contradictory narrative about the offending, undermined the genuineness of his remorse. The court also considered the appellant's background, agreeing that his difficult upbringing and abuse had a causative contribution to his offending. However, the court found that these factors did not warrant a significant adjustment to the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the sentence imposed by the District Court was dismissed.

Orders