Cramer-Roberts v Police - [2025] NZHC 1478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2024-404-000715
CRI 2024-404-000716
[2025] NZHC 1478

BETWEEN HARVEY WILLIAM CRAMER-ROBERTS
Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE
First Respondent
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Second Respondent

Hearing: 19 May 2025

Appearances: P H H Tomlinson for the Appellant
A L Stuart for the Respondents

Judgment: 6 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF TAHANA J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 June 2025 at 11.00 am

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Peter H H Tomlinson, Barrister, Auckland Crown Solicitor, Meredith Connell, Auckland

CRAMER-ROBERTS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [Appeal against sentence] [2025] NZHC 1478 [6 June 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Cramer-Roberts appeals his sentence of four years and one month imprisonment (49 months’ imprisonment).1 The sentence related to five sets of offending and a substituted sentence, as follows:

(a)Theft of his employer’s property2 and taking, obtaining, or using a document (the employer’s order book) for a pecuniary advantage in September 2013.3

(b)Cultivating five cannabis plants in October 2015.4

(c)Failing to report for community work,5 and breaching a supervision sentence6 in 2015. The underlying community sentence related to four unrelated charges of dishonesty offending and was substituted by the sentencing Judge for cumulative and concurrent sentences of three months’ imprisonment.

(d)Making a false representation for the purpose of procuring a passport,7 and using a false passport from February 2016 to January 2023.8

(e)Driving with excessive breath alcohol on 9 July 2023 when Mr Cramer- Roberts drove his car to the police station while intoxicated for the purpose of reporting as required by his bail conditions.9

[2] Mr Cramer-Roberts asserts that the sentencing Judge set the starting point for the lead passport offending too high, applied excessive uplifts for the other offending, did not make a sufficient adjustment for totality and erred in imposing a cumulative

1      Police v Cramer-Roberts [2024] NZDC 27099.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(b). Maximum penalty: 7 years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 228(1)(b). Maximum penalty: 7 years’ imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9(1). Maximum penalty: 7 years’ imprisonment.
5      Sentencing Act 2002, s 71(1)(a). Maximum penalty: 3 months’ imprisonment or $1000 fine.
6      Sentencing Act 2002, s 70(a). Maximum penalty: 3 months’ imprisonment or $1000 fine.
7      Passports Act 1992, s 32(1)(a). Maximum penalty: 5 years’ imprisonment or $15,000 fine or both.
8      Passports Act 1992, s 29A. Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment or $250,000 fine or both.
9      Land Transport Act 1998, s 56(1). Maximum penalty: 3 months’ imprisonment or $4,500 fine or both, and 6 months’ disqualification from driving.

substituted sentence of three months’ imprisonment. He argues that an appropriate end sentence would be from two years and six months’ imprisonment to three years’ imprisonment (30 to 36 months’ imprisonment).

[3] The Crown acknowledges that the Judge made a five-month calculation error but says that this was in Mr Cramer-Roberts’ favour, the discount for his guilty plea was generous and the end sentence…

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 Cramer-Roberts v Police

Details

AGLC: Cramer-Roberts v Police [2025] NZHC 1478
Case: [2025] NZHC 1478
Decision Date: 6 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Harvey William Cramer-Roberts appeals his four-year and one-month imprisonment sentence imposed for various offenses, including passport fraud, theft, cannabis cultivation, breach of community work and supervision, and drink driving. Cramer-Roberts argues that the sentencing judge set the starting point for the passport fraud offense too high, applied excessive uplifts for other offenses, did not sufficiently adjust for totality, and erred in imposing a cumulative sentence for the substituted offense. He contends that an appropriate sentence would be between two and a half to three years' imprisonment. The Crown acknowledges a five-month calculation error favoring Cramer-Roberts but maintains that the discount for his guilty pleas is generous and the sentence is not manifestly excessive.

The High Court reviewed the sentencing judge's decisions on the starting point for passport fraud, uplifts for other offenses, and adjustments for totality and personal aggravating factors. The Court found that the starting point for passport fraud was not manifestly excessive, but the uplifts for the other offenses were excessive. Specifically, the Court found a 12-month uplift for dishonesty offenses, a one-month uplift for cannabis offenses, a one-month uplift for drink driving, and a one-month uplift for breaches of community work and supervision were appropriate. The Court also found that the sentencing judge failed to sufficiently consider totality and that the uplifts for personal aggravating factors were excessive. The Court concluded that a global starting point of 52 months' imprisonment, after applying discounts for guilty pleas and remorse, resulted in an appropriate end sentence of three years and six months' imprisonment.

The appeal is allowed, and the sentence is substituted to reflect the Court's findings. The effective end sentence is three years and six months' imprisonment.

Orders