Curtis v The King - [2025] NZCA 193

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA549/2024
[2025] NZCA 193

BETWEEN	AREN THOMAS CURTIS Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	26 March 2025
Court:	Woolford, Muir and Isac JJ
Counsel:	W T Nabney for Appellant J G Fenton for Respondent
Judgment:	28 May 2025 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Muir J)

Introduction

Mr Aren Curtis appeals a sentence of five years and eight months’ imprisonment imposed by the District Court in respect of 15 charges, namely, six burglaries, discharging a firearm with reckless disregard, two thefts, two instances of receiving, unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, possession of LSD, attempting to dishonestly use a document and attempting to pervert the course of justice.[1] The sentence was imposed concurrently on all six burglary charges with Judge L M Bidois adopting a starting point of five years for the dishonesty offending, uplifted by two years and six months for the firearm offending and nine months for attempting to pervert the course of justice.[2] The sentence was also uplifted by three months for Mr Curtis’s previous convictions and a further three months for the fact some of the offending was committed while absconding.[3] The sentence was then reduced by 20 per cent for his guilty plea, 10 per cent on account of background factors and seven per cent for remorse.[4]
[1]R v Curtis [2024] NZDC 17361 [sentencing notes].
[2]At [20] and [23]–[24].
[3]At [25].
[4]At [26]–[28].
Mr Curtis submits that the starting point for the dishonesty offending was too high and should have been no more than four years, the uplift for the firearm offending was excessive and should have been two years only and that he should have received a 20 per cent discount for his background circumstances.

The offending

Between August and September 2020, Mr Curtis carried out a spree of burglaries, targeting industrial areas late at night and destroying or stealing CCTV cameras and footage to avoid detection. He used stolen vehicles, on occasion with licence plates he had swapped out in order to further minimise his chances of detection.
He pleaded guilty to all resulting charges and was released on bail. In March 2021 he absconded from the bail address and carried out a further spree of offending including, receiving stolen cheques, unlawfully getting into a stolen Audi motor vehicle worth $120,000 and burglary of a residential address (where the complainant was growing marijuana plants due to a medical condition and a confrontation ensued). Two or three days later he was involved in a police chase in the stolen vehicle. When eventually the vehicle was stopped the appellant fled into neighbouring properties. He was followed by a police officer through several addresses until the appellant raised a pistol and discharged it at the officer. Fearing he would be killed the officer ran from the area in a zigzag formation. Police found 34 tabs of LSD, 0.1 grams 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 v The King

Details

AGLC: Curtis v The King [2025] NZCA 193
Case: [2025] NZCA 193
Decision Date: 28 May 2025 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aren Thomas Curtis appeals against a sentence of five years and eight months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court on various charges, including burglaries, firearm offences, and attempts to pervert the course of justice. The Court of Appeal considered Mr Curtis's arguments that the starting point for the dishonesty offending should have been no more than four years, the uplift for the firearm offending should have been two years, and that he should have received a 20 per cent discount for his background circumstances. The Court examined the starting point, the uplifts for the firearm offence and previous convictions, and the discount for background circumstances.

The starting point for the dishonesty offending was set at five years, with a reduction from a six-year starting point as per Sullivan v R. The Court found that the Judge's starting point was appropriate, considering the premeditation, scale of the loss, and the risk of confrontation in the burglaries. The Court also held that the two-year and six-month uplift for the reckless discharge of the firearm was justified, despite the fact that the firearm was a starter pistol and no physical harm was caused. The Court reasoned that the psychological harm to the police officer and the risk of indirect endangerment warranted the uplift. Finally, the Court found that while a slightly higher discount for background circumstances might have been appropriate, the final sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the District Court's sentence. The Court noted that the starting point, uplifts, and discounts all fell within the appropriate range, and the final sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court also considered the significance of the background factors in light of the seriousness of the offending, concluding that the final sentence was appropriate.

Orders