Gray v Police - [2025] NZHC 2843

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2025-412-000067

[2025] NZHC 2843

BETWEEN
WARREN RICHARD GRAY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 17 September 2025

Appearances:

A W Belcher for Appellant (via VMR) J C Collins for Respondent (via VMR)

Judgment:

29 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 September 2025 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

GRAY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2843 [29 September 2025]

Introduction

[1] The appellant Warren Richard Gray, aged 62, was sentenced to a total term of 20 months’ imprisonment after admitting two charges of burglary1 and one charge of possession of objectionable material.2

[2] Mr Gray appeals the sentence as manifestly excessive, due to the uplift imposed in respect of the objectionable material offending. Further, he says the Judge ought to have commuted his sentence to one of home detention.3

The offending

[3] Between June and August 2024, the student occupants of a flat in North Dunedin noticed their clothing was going missing from their laundry and installed CCTV. On 6 August 2024, at 6.20 am Mr Gray was captured on CCTV entering the laundry of that flat and taking clothing, including underwear, from the washing machine and dryer.

[4] On 28 September at 9.30 pm, Mr Gray entered the shared yard of two other flats in North Dunedin. One of the occupants heard a noise in the backyard, and went to investigate, having also had clothing and underwear recently stolen from their laundry. The occupant confronted Mr Gray and recorded the interaction. Mr Gray told him he was looking for his girlfriend and left the address.

[5] On 19 November 2024 a search warrant was executed at Mr Gray’s address. Clothing belonging to the victims, including hundreds of pairs of men’s underwear, were located at the address.

Objectionable publication

[6] Mr Gray’s cell phone was also seized and subsequently searched, after detection of apparent objectionable material.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a)—maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Films, Videos & Publications Classification Act 1993, s 131A(1)—maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment or $50,000 fine.
3      Police v Gray [2025] NZDC 19043.

[7] Analysis of the cell phone detected three videos depicting bestiality involving adult males. Two of the videos depicted penetrative sexual activity. I adopt the Judge’s outline at sentencing:

[9] … One shows a black and white calf licking a Caucasian male’s erect penis, that was downloaded on 10 May 2024. A second video showing a partially naked Caucasian male who positions himself in a bent over position, a black horse with an erect penis then mounts the male from behind and the male uses his hand to guide the horse’s penis into his anus. The horse penetrates the man’s anus multiple times. This is filmed from a side-on point of view and from front on.

[10] Finally, there is a screen recording of a…

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 Gray v Police

Details

AGLC: Gray v Police [2025] NZHC 2843
Case: [2025] NZHC 2843
Decision Date: 29 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Warren Richard Gray against his sentence for two counts of burglary and possession of objectionable material was heard by the High Court. Mr. Gray argued that the six-month uplift for the objectionable publications charge was excessive and that a home detention order would have been appropriate. The Court had to determine whether the sentence was within the available range and whether the principles of denunciation and deterrence justified a custodial sentence.

The Court analyzed the nature of the objectionable publications, which involved adult bestiality, and acknowledged that while the videos were less severe than those involving children, they were still objectionable. The Court noted that the uplift of six months for the objectionable publications charge was too high, but three months would be more appropriate. However, considering the totality of the offending, the Court found that the overall sentence was within the range for the seriousness of the crimes committed, which included burgling two residences and possessing the objectionable material.

Regarding the guilty plea, the Court upheld the Judge's decision to apply a 20 percent credit, noting the significant delay between the laying of the burglary charges and Mr. Gray's guilty pleas. Lastly, the Court found that the Judge was justified in not imposing home detention, given the seriousness of the offending and Mr. Gray's denials of responsibility.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders