Gosai v Police - [2025] NZHC 1548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-133

[2025] NZHC 1548

BETWEEN
RISHAP GOSAI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 12 June 2025

Appearances:

M G Whitford for Appellant A M Harvey for Respondent

Judgment:

12 June 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(appeal against sentence)

[1] On 6 June 2025 Rishap Gosai (age 20) was sentenced by Judge Kellar to 10 months’ home detention following his guilty pleas to 19 charges as follows:

(a)dishonestly take/obtain/use credit card (representative) (x3)1;

(b)dishonestly take/obtain/use credit card (x2);2

(c)receive property (over $1,000) (x3);3

(d)receive property (under $500);4

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 228(1)(b)—maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 228(1)(b)—maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 246 and 247(a)—maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 246 and 247(c)—maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.

GOSAI v POLICE [2025] NZHC 1548 [12 June 2025]

(e) theft (over $1,000) (x2);5

(f)theft (under $500) (x2);6

(g)possession of a cannabis pipe;7

(h)possession of a methamphetamine pipe (x3);8

(i)wilful damage;9 and

(j)failing to stop.10

[2] Mr Gosai appeals on the ground the Judge did not reduce the sentence to reflect pre-sentence detention and this rendered the sentence manifestly excessive.

The offending

[3]All offences were committed between December 2023 and February 2025.

[4]I adopt in full the sentencing Judge’s summary of the offending:

[3] On 27 December 2023, you stole a laptop valued at [$1,724]. The laptop was not recovered, and reparation is sought. You entered a plea of guilty to the one charge of theft of property over $1,000 in value.

[4] On 23 April 2024, you tried to sell a stolen Hilti laser on Facebook Marketplace. The true owner arranged to buy the laser, met you, and recovered it. You were charged with receiving stolen property and it was worth more than $1,000.

[5] On 9 May, you entered the victim’s car and stole items. You were stopped at the scene and all items were returned. Again, you plead guilty to that charge.

[6] There is a raft of offending between 15 May and 6 September 2024. Three victims had their cars broken into. Bank cards belonging to the three

5      Sections 219 and 223(b)—maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
6      Sections 219 and 223(d)—maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
7      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 13(1)(a) and subs (3)—maximum penalty one years’ imprisonment or $500 fine.
8      Section 13(1)(a) and subs (3)—maximum penalty one years’ imprisonment or $500 fine.
9      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a)—maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or
$2,000 fine.
10     Land Transport Act 1998, ss 114(2), 52A(1)(a)(ii) and subs (2)—maximum penalty $10,000 fine.

victims were stolen. You used those cards to complete several purchases. In relation to the first victim, $4,009.15 was stolen. Regarding the second victim, a total of $249.49 was stolen. As far as the third victim is concerned, you attempted to make a transaction but by then the card was declined. You entered pleas to the three charges of dishonestly using…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gosai v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 1548
Decision Date: 12 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, Rishap Gosai appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to reduce his sentence to account for pre-sentence detention, rendering it manifestly excessive. The appellant pleaded guilty to a series of charges, including theft, receiving stolen property, dishonest use of credit cards, possession of drug paraphernalia, wilful damage, and failing to stop. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 10 months' home detention, which the appellant contended was excessive without the appropriate credit for the 163 days spent in pre-sentence detention. Both parties agreed that the sole issue on appeal was the failure to account for the pre-sentence detention.

The court considered the appropriate credit for pre-sentence detention, noting the differing views on whether a one-for-one or a two-for-one deduction was appropriate. The court concluded that a one-for-one deduction was appropriate in this case, taking into account the appellant's age, lack of prior criminal history, and the causal connection between his offending and drug addiction. The court decided that the home detention sentence should be reduced by an additional five months to reflect the pre-sentence detention.

The appeal was allowed, and the original sentence of 10 months' home detention was replaced with a sentence of five months' home detention. The lesser sentences, conditions, and reparation orders remained unchanged.

Orders