Legal Research
Cases
Currie v Police

Currie v Police

Case [2025] NZHC 2832 26 September 2025

Appeal

Sentencing

Breach of Release Conditions

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-000193 CRI-2025-409-000194 CRI-2025-409-000195 CRI-2025-409-000196

[2025] NZHC 2832

BETWEEN
PHILIP LEN CURRIE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 25 September 2025

Appearances:

P N Allan for Appellant

K N Stitely for Respondent

Judgment:

26 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(appeal against sentence)

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

CURRIE v POLICE [2025] NZHC 2832 [26 September 2025]

Introduction

[1] Philip Currie appeals a sentence of two years and three and a half months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Couch on 5 August 2025 in the Christchurch District Court1 following his guilty pleas to charges of:

(a)Breach of release conditions;2

(b)Burglary (x 2);3

(c)Failure to answer bail;4 and

(d)Unlawful possession of ammunition.5

[2] The sentence included a two-month uplift on a resentencing, Mr Currie having failed to complete an earlier sentence of community work.

Facts

[3] Mr Currie was released from prison on 25 June 2024 and was subject to one year and two months of post-detention release conditions. He was formally inducted, indicated that he fully understood the terms and conditions of his release licence and signed the induction document accordingly. Mr Currie breached a release condition on 27 October 2024 by consuming alcohol. For that breach and on a charge of disorderly behaviour, he was sentenced to 40 hours’ community work on 19 November 2024. Mr Currie was sentenced to a further 40 hours of community work on 2 December 2024 after pleading guilty to a charge of burglary.

[4] On 8 January 2025, Mr Currie was sent a letter urging him to re-engage with his sentence obligations to avoid enforcement action being taken after a period of

1      Police v Currie [2025] NZDC 18422.
2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 96(1)—maximum penalty: one year of imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a)—maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
4      Bail Act 2000, s 38(a)—maximum penalty: one year of imprisonment or a fine not exceeding
$2,000.
5      Arms Act 1983, s 22B—maximum penalty: fine not exceeding $10,000.

non-compliance. On 29 January 2025 he failed to report as instructed and was breached.

[5] Mr Currie completed only two hours of the two community work sentences and last reported on 23 January 2025. An application was made to cancel and substitute the community work sentence.

[6] I turn to the property offending. At approximately 4.30 am on 15 December 2024, Mr Currie walked up the driveway and through the carport of an address in Christchurch and stole two sets of outdoor lights. He left, but returned a short time later and took a box of beer that had been left in the carport. The items had a combined value of $30. About a week later, at approximately 6.30 am on 22 December, Mr Currie entered another property through a side gate and took a hedge…

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 Currie v Police

Details

AGLC: Currie v Police [2025] NZHC 2832
Case: [2025] NZHC 2832
Decision Date: 26 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Currie v Police involves an appeal by Philip Currie against his sentence imposed by the Christchurch District Court. Currie was sentenced to two years and three and a half months’ imprisonment following his guilty pleas to multiple charges including burglary, breach of release conditions, failure to answer bail, and unlawful possession of ammunition. Currie argues that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the starting points and uplifts being set too high, particularly for the burglaries and breach of release conditions. The respondent, New Zealand Police, argues that the sentence was appropriate given the nature and gravity of the offences.

The primary legal issues in this case revolve around the appropriateness of the starting points and uplifts applied by the District Court in determining the sentence. Currie contends that the starting point for the burglaries was too high as the items stolen were of relatively low value and there was no confrontation with the occupants. He also argues that the uplifts for breaching release conditions and failing to answer bail were excessive. The respondent contends that the starting point and uplifts were appropriate given the nature of the offending and the risk factors involved.

In reviewing the sentence, the High Court found that the starting point for the burglaries was indeed too high, noting that the theft of low-value items from outside residential properties engaged very low-level gravity. The Court reduced the starting point to 17 months. The Court also found the uplifts for breaching release conditions and failing to answer bail to be excessive, reducing the uplift for breaching release conditions to two months and the uplift for failing to answer bail to one month. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and substituted a sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment, with appropriate special release conditions.

The final orders of the court were to quash the original sentences and substitute new sentences as determined in the judgment, including eight months’ imprisonment for the two burglary charges, two months’ imprisonment for breaching release conditions, and one month imprisonment for failing to answer bail, with a total sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment.

Orders