Good v Police - [2025] NZHC 2672

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-157 [2025] NZHC 2672

BETWEEN
MICHAEL ROSS GOOD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 11 September 2025

Appearances:

H V Bennett for Appellant M W Fulton for Respondent

Judgment:

15 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 September 2025 at 11.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

GOOD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2672 [15 September 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Good was sentenced to 100 hours community work having pleaded guilty to charges of intentional damage1 and intimidation.2 A final protection order was made in favour of the victim.3 Mr Good appeals the community work order, which he contends was manifestly excessive, and the imposition of the final protection order, which he contends was unnecessary.

Facts

[2] Mr Good had been in an “on-again off-again” relationship with the victim for approximately two years. Around midday on 20 January 2025, he was at her address and they had an argument. Mr Good stood in front of the victim, threatening to smash the house. He left before returning to the address three minutes later where the victim was inside with the door locked. Mr Good punched and kicked the front door. He then picked up a large rock and threw it at the victim’s vehicle, damaging the windscreen.

District Court decision

[3] In sentencing Mr Good, the Judge noted that, beyond convictions for assault in 2002, Mr Good had no history of violent offending. However, he noted the family violence report which disclosed two incidents with the same complainant, in January and April 2023. Following those incidents, Mr Good was in custody for unrelated offending.

[4] The Judge agreed with counsel that the appropriate penalty was a moderate period of community work given Mr Good’s willingness to make reparation for the windscreen, his guilty plea and the lack of “any real history” of family violence.4 The Judge convicted Mr Good, sentenced him to 100 hours community work and ordered him to pay $471.50 in reparation.

1      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a)—maximum sentence three months’ imprisonment or
$2,000 fine.
2      Summary Offences Act, s 21(1)(a)—maximum sentence three months’ imprisonment.
3      Police v Good [2025] NZDC 12355.
4 At [6].

[5]As to whether or not to grant a protection order, the Judge said this:

[7] … I am advised … that not only is [the victim] not objecting to a protection order, which is one of the statutory grounds, she actively seeks one. I do note the defendant has been reporting in terms of his sentence as far as we can tell and there has been no suggestion of any bail breach but, as against that, there are previous matters.

[8] This is family violence, and it is matter which gives rise to some concern. The complainant is in some ways best placed to know the extent to which such…

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 Good v Police

Details

AGLC: Good v Police [2025] NZHC 2672
Case: [2025] NZHC 2672
Decision Date: 15 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Ross Good appeals the sentence imposed on him by the Christchurch District Court, which included 100 hours of community work and a final protection order. The appeal was heard by Dunningham J in the High Court of New Zealand. The appeal against the community work sentence was dismissed. The appeal against the final protection order was also dismissed. The appellant pleaded guilty to charges of intentional damage and intimidation against the victim. He was sentenced to 100 hours community work and ordered to pay $471.50 in reparation. A final protection order was made in favour of the victim.

The appeal hinged on two main issues: the excessiveness of the community work sentence and the necessity of the final protection order. The appellant argued that the community work sentence was manifestly excessive and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles. The Crown argued that the sentence was within range and not manifestly excessive. The High Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, particularly considering the maximum penalty available on each charge and the possibility of meeting the hours through attending training programmes.

The appellant also contested the necessity of the final protection order, arguing that there was insufficient information to establish a pattern of conduct that suggests future risk. The Crown argued that the protection order was necessary, given the appellant's past violent conduct and the victim's reasonable fear of future violence. The High Court found that the sentencing judge had correctly imposed the protection order, as there had been past violence and the victim held a reasonable fear of future violence.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The Court found no error in the sentencing judge's approach and upheld the sentence and final protection order imposed by the District Court.

Orders