Cross v The King - [2025] NZHC 1883

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2025-419-42 CRI-2025-419-43

CRI-2025-419-44 [2025] NZHC 1883

BETWEEN
TONI MARIE CROSS

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 9 July 2025

Appearances:

J Tarrant and S L Prescott for Appellant K Dillon for Respondent

Judgment:

10 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 10 July 2025 at 3.00 pm
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
J Tarrant, Barrister, Hamilton
Hamilton Legal, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

CROSS v R [2025] NZHC 1883 [10 July 2025]

[1] Ms Cross pleaded guilty in the District Court to three charges of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice1 and two charges of using forged documents to obtain a pecuniary advantage.2 On 24 March 2025, Judge A I M Tompkins sentenced her to two years four months’ imprisonment.3

[2] Ms Cross appeals against sentence. She contends the Judge erred by failing to provide her with discounts to reflect several mitigating factors. She maintains this error has resulted in an end sentence that is manifestly excessive. Should the sentence be reduced to one of less than two years’ imprisonment, she argues it should be converted to a sentence of home detention.

The charges

[3] The charges that Ms Cross faced can be divided into three distinct groups. The first relates to offending that occurred in May 2022, when one of Ms Cross’s friends, Ms F, was the subject of criminal charges in the District Court.4 She elected trial by Judge-alone and Ms Cross assisted her in preparing her defence to the charges, which related to the use of forged documents. Ms F and Ms Cross approached a person who was vulnerable and suffered from mental health issues. In an attempt to influence the outcome of the trial, Ms F and Ms Cross asked this person to alter some official documents and give evidence for the defence at trial. Ms F told him that if he did not do so she would kill herself and this would leave her children and Ms Cross’s children with nobody to look after them. As I shortly explain, Ms F was also looking after Ms Cross’s children at this time.

[4] During the hearing, the Judge asked a duty solicitor to speak to the witness regarding the evidence that he proposed to give. This resulted in the witness telling the duty solicitor that Ms F and Ms Cross had asked him to give false evidence for the defence. The Judge then referred the matter to the police for investigation. A charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice was laid as a result of this series of events.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 117(e).
2      Section 257(1)(b).
3      R v Cross [2025] NZDC 7187.
4      I have anonymized this person’s name because they still face charges in the District Court.

[5] The second group of charges relates to events that occurred between…

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 Cross v The King

Details

AGLC: Cross v The King [2025] NZHC 1883
Case: [2025] NZHC 1883
Decision Date: 10 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Cross appealed against her sentence imposed by Judge Tompkins in the District Court, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the Judge had failed to provide her with appropriate discounts for mitigating factors. Ms Cross was sentenced to two years and four months' imprisonment for offences of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice and using forged documents to obtain a pecuniary advantage. Ms Cross maintained that the sentence was excessive and that if it was reduced to less than two years' imprisonment, it should be converted to a sentence of home detention. The court considered whether the Judge was required to provide Ms Cross with discounts for her previous good character, mental health difficulties, the effect of imprisonment on her children, and her offer of reparation. The court found that the Judge was not required to provide discounts for any of these mitigating factors. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The legal issues in this case were whether the sentencing Judge was required to provide Ms Cross with discounts to reflect her previous good character, mental health issues, the effect of imprisonment on her children, and her offer of reparation. The court found that the Judge was not required to provide discounts for any of these factors. The court held that Ms Cross's offending was not "one-off" or a momentary lapse of judgment, and therefore, a discount for previous good character was not warranted. The court also found that there was no causal nexus between Ms Cross's mental health issues and her offending, and therefore, a discount for mental health issues was not appropriate. The court further held that Ms Cross's offer of reparation was too small to warrant a discount, and that the impact of imprisonment on her children was not sufficient to warrant a discount because she was not the primary caregiver for her children. The court's reasoning was based on established principles of sentencing and the specific facts of the case.

Orders