Gordon v The King - [2025] NZHC 577

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-706

[2025] NZHC 577

BETWEEN
JENNIFER GORDON

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 10 March 2025

Appearances:

S Georgiou for Appellant J Lowyim for Respondent

Judgment:

19 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 March 2025 at 4pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland S Georgiou, Auckland

GORDON v R [2025] NZHC 577 [19 March 2025]

What this appeal is about

[1] Ms Jennifer Gordon appeals against her sentence of two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment imposed in the Waitakere District Court by Judge Pecotic on 6 November 2024.

[2] Ms Gordon is a serial and prolific shoplifter. She was convicted of seven shoplifting charges, some for very high value amounts, and one charge of possession of cannabis for supply. The accepted summary of facts identifies Ms Gordon as one of the highest-risk recidivist retail crime offenders in the country.

[3]Ms Gordon appeals on three grounds:

(a)the starting point for the lead Crown charge, or charges, of 21 months’ imprisonment was too high and should have been 16 to 17 months;

(b)the uplift from the lead charges, first for the other police shoplifting charges and then for the cannabis for supply charge, should have been no more than an additional 14 months; and

(c)the reduction of 15 per cent for Ms Gordon’s mental health issues and her rehabilitative efforts was too low and should have been 25 per cent.

[4] As a result of these errors, Mr Georgiou, whose submissions were well- presented and carefully considered, submitted that the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

[5] Mr Lowyim, who presented the Crown case precisely, strongly opposed the appeal. He submitted that the sentencing Judge was well within range in respect of all the issues raised by Ms Gordon. The Crown is emphatic that the end sentence is not manifestly excessive.

The offending

[6] It is important to note the breadth of the offending and the value of the items taken. It is convenient to set out the Crown’s description of the facts, which is not disputed, as follows.

[7] Between 23 September 2022 and 1 June 2024, Ms Gordon went to numerous retail stores where she took items and left without paying. These items were typically concealed in bags Ms Gordon had brought to the store for that purpose. Ms Gordon would put the items in the bags while in the fitting rooms. On some occasions, Ms Gordon removed security tags before leaving the store.

[8]The particulars of each shoplifting incident are as follows:

(a)23 September 2022: David Jones Newmarket, $1,459.94 of clothes taken.

(b)25 September 2022: David Jones Newmarket, $2,187.40 of clothes taken.

(c)1 November 2022: David Jones Newmarket, $8,490 of clothes taken.

(d)17 December 2022: Rebel Sport Wairau, $2,158.75 of stock taken.

(e)4 April 2023: Farmers Albany, $2,009.96 of duvet sets taken.

(f)8 April 2023: Briscoes Wairau Park and Briscoes Glenfield Mall, $4,329.89…

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 Gordon v The King

Details

AGLC: Gordon v The King [2025] NZHC 577
Case: [2025] NZHC 577
Decision Date: 19 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jennifer Gordon appeals against her sentence of two-and-a-half years' imprisonment for multiple shoplifting charges and possession of cannabis for supply, imposed by the Waitakere District Court. The appeal focuses on the starting point for the lead charges, the uplift for additional shoplifting charges, and the discount for her mental health issues. Mr Georgiou argues that the starting point should have been lower, the uplift for additional charges should have been minimal, and the discount for mental health issues should have been higher. The Crown strongly opposes the appeal, arguing that the sentence is justified.

The court examines the extensive nature of Gordon's offending, which involved stealing over $25,000 worth of goods from various retail stores. The court considers the starting point for the lead charges, acknowledging that the judge's approach was within the appropriate range, despite some uncertainty. Regarding the uplift for additional charges, the court concludes that the uplift was appropriate, considering the totality of the offending. For the cannabis charge, the court finds that the uplift of 10 months was justified, given the commercial element of the offence.

The court also considers the discount for Gordon's mental health issues, which include anxiety, depression, and kleptomania. The judge's 15% discount was deemed appropriate, as it balanced Gordon's mental health issues with her ongoing propensity to steal for financial gain. The court finds no material error in the sentence and concludes that it is not manifestly excessive.

In conclusion, the appeal is dismissed, and the original sentence is upheld as appropriate and justified. The sentencing judge's comprehensive approach, which balanced all relevant factors, resulted in an appropriate sentence for Gordon's extensive and high-value shoplifting offences and possession of cannabis for supply.

Orders