D v Police - [2025] NZHC 1890

NOTE: THIS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN REDACTED TO COMPLY WITH S 182 OF THE FAMILY VIOLENCE ACT 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2025-412-41

[2025] NZHC 1890

BETWEEN
D

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 July 2025

Appearances:

B P Stephenson for Appellant J C Collins for Respondent

Judgment:

11 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 July 2025 at 9.45 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

D v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1890 [11 July 2025]

Introduction

[1] D pleaded guilty to two charges: possession of cannabis for supply1 and assault with intent to injure.2 On 29 April 2025, Mr D was sentenced by Judge Robinson to a short-term sentence of imprisonment and including a release condition not to associate with the victim of his offending without prior approval of a probation officer.3

[2] Mr D now appeals the decision to impose this release condition on the ground it was not reasonably necessary and proportional to the risk of further harm or offending against the victim.

Facts

[3] Mr D had been in a relationship with the victim for about six months. On 5 September 2024, a verbal argument began after the victim opened a can of soft drink which spilled on the bed. Mr D became angry, believing she had done this on purpose.

[4] He grabbed the can and hit the victim in the eye and face a few times. This caused a large bruise and swelling to her right eye and she later suffered vomiting and a sore head over a period of days. Medical attention was sought. The victim impact statement confirms she suffered a delayed concussion.

[5] The police were called. While at Mr D’s address, they noted a strong smell of cannabis and invoked their warrantless search powers. Mr D told the police he had a large amount of cannabis in the house. That cannabis was located in a reusable shopping bag, inside a shared wardrobe. It was in various sealed plastic bags, with a total weight of 156 grams of cannabis.

District Court decision

[6] When sentencing Mr D, the Judge took a combined starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment (being 18 months on the drug charge and 12 months on the assault). He then uplifted this by 10 per cent for the appellant’s relevant history.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6; maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 193; maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
3      Police v [D] [2025] NZDC 9390.

[7] The Judge then reduced the sentence by 20 per cent to reflect the appellant’s guilty plea, five per cent to recognise remorse, and 10 per cent to reflect the appellant’s background and insight. This resulted in an end sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment.

[8] Both home detention and intensive supervision were considered, but the Judge determined…

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 D v Police

Details

AGLC: D v Police [2025] NZHC 1890
Case: [2025] NZHC 1890
Decision Date: 11 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Dunedin Registry, D, the appellant, challenged the sentencing decision of the District Court which had imposed a release condition that he was not to associate with the victim of his offending without the prior approval of a probation officer. D's appeal was based on the grounds that the condition was not reasonably necessary and proportional to the risk of further harm or offending against the victim. The key legal issues centered on whether the non-association condition imposed by the District Court was justified under the principles and purposes of sentencing, and whether it was reasonably necessary and proportionate to the risk D posed.

The court considered the principles and purposes of sentencing, particularly the need to reduce the risk of reoffending, facilitate rehabilitation, and address the reasonable concerns of victims. It also reviewed the specific circumstances of D's offending and his history of family violence, as well as the victim's vulnerability and the effectiveness of the protection order. The court held that given D's history of family violence, the vulnerability of the victim, and the need to ensure effective rehabilitation and deterrence, the non-association condition was a reasonable and proportionate measure. The court found that the condition was necessary to ensure D's reintegration into the community in a manner that minimised the risk to the victim and promoted his rehabilitation.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence, including the non-association condition, was upheld. This decision underscores the importance of balancing the rights and needs of both the offender and the victim in sentencing, and the role of special conditions in achieving this balance.

Orders