Curtis-Smith v The King - [2025] NZHC 511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CRI-2024-476-34

[2025] NZHC 511

BETWEEN
COURTNEY ROBERT CURTIS-SMITH

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 13 March 2025

Appearances:

J B Lovely for Appellant

C J Mitchelmore for Respondent

Judgment:

13 March 2025

ORAL 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:

CURTIS-SMITH v R [2025] NZHC 511 [13 March 2025]

Introduction

[1] Courtney Robert Curtis-Smith pleaded guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to injure,1 and a second charge of breaching a protection order.2 He was sentenced by Judge Savage on 27 November 2024 to two years and four months’ imprisonment.3 He now appeals this decision on the grounds the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Facts

[2]I adopt the following facts from the prosecution’s summary of facts.

[3] Mr Curtis-Smith and the victim were in a relationship for approximately five years. In September 2015, the victim obtained a protection order against Mr Curtis-Smith. In November 2018, the victim was visiting Mr Curtis-Smith’s house, checking up on her horse. In the evening, they purchased a large bottle of bourbon from Geraldine and began drinking it together.

[4] In the early hours of 25 November, both were intoxicated and an argument developed. When the victim went to leave the kitchen, Mr Curtis-Smith slammed her head into the wall with sufficient force to knock her unconscious, fracture her eye socket and cause her nose to bleed heavily. She was briefly unconscious. The next thing she remembers is the appellant lifting her to the point where her feet were no longer on the ground. At some point, Mr Curtis-Smith took her by the arms and threw her out the front door, locking her outside.

District Court Decision

[5] The Judge found that Mr Curtis-Smith’s offending fell within band three of Nuku v R,4 as three aggravating features were present, an attack to the head, the level of violence which the Judge initially described as serious and then as extreme, and serious injury.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
2      Domestic Violence Act 1995, ss 19(1)(a) or (b), and 49(1)(b) and 49(3); maximum penalty three years imprisonment.
3      R v Curtis-Smith [2024] NZDC 28968.
4      Nuku v R [2012] NZCA 584, [2013] 2 NZLR 39.

[6] The Judge adopted a starting point of three years and nine months’ imprisonment, which took into account that the victim was named as the protected person in a protection order at the time of the offending. A two-month uplift was imposed for previous convictions. A 20 per cent reduction was allowed for guilty pleas and 10 per cent for rehabilitation. No allowance was made for remorse including, in particular, an offer to pay harm reparation.

[7] An end sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment was imposed. A concurrent term 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 Curtis-Smith v The King

Details

AGLC: Curtis-Smith v The King [2025] NZHC 511
Case: [2025] NZHC 511
Decision Date: 13 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Courtney Robert Curtis-Smith appealed his sentence for injuring with intent to injure and breaching a protection order, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The District Court had sentenced him to two years and four months’ imprisonment, with a concurrent term of six months for the protection order breach. Curtis-Smith's appeal was based on the contention that the starting point was too high, the breach of the protection order was double-counted, and the offer to pay emotional harm reparation was not sufficiently considered. The Crown opposed the appeal, arguing the starting point was appropriate and the offer to pay emotional harm reparation was not accepted by the victim. The High Court found that while the starting point was at the higher end of the range, it was not outside the available range. The Court also found that there was no error in considering the breach of the protection order as an aggravating factor, and no error in not allowing a deduction for the offer to pay emotional harm reparation as it was not accepted by the victim. The Court found the most significant issue was the extraordinary delay in charging Curtis-Smith, nearly five years after the offence. The Court found this delay was not attributable to Curtis-Smith and required a substantial reduction in sentence. The Court fixed the reduction at 20 per cent, resulting in a net deduction of 45 per cent, leading to an end sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment. The Court considered a sentence of home detention to be the least restrictive appropriate sentence given the delay and Curtis-Smith's rehabilitation, but noted that his current residence was not feasible for electronic monitoring. The Court granted leave for Curtis-Smith to apply to the District Court for a sentence of home detention to be substituted for imprisonment.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment was quashed. In substitution, the Court imposed a sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment and granted leave for Curtis-Smith to apply for home detention.

Orders