Hastie-Sonnenberg v The King - [2024] NZHC 551

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2023-412-00093 CRI-2023-412-00094 CRI-2023-412-00095 CRI-2023-412-00096 CRI-2023-412-00097

CRI-2023-412-00098 [2024] NZHC 551

BETWEEN NATHAN GEORGE HASTIE- SONNENBERG
Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 19 February 2024

Appearances:

A M S Williams for Appellant R D Smith for Respondent

Judgment:

14 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J

(Appeal against sentence)

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 March 2024 at pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

HASTIE-SONNENBERG v R [2024] NZHC 551 [14 March 2024]

Introduction

[1] Having accepted a sentence indication on the basis of a starting point of four years imprisonment before further adjustments, Nathan Hastie-Sonnenberg was sentenced to two years 11 months’ imprisonment on 10 charges:1

(a)possession of methamphetamine for supply;2

(b)possession of an offensive weapon;3

(c)receiving stolen property (over $1,000) x3;4

(d)receiving stolen property (under $500) x3;5

(e)possession of a knife in a public place;6 and

(f)unlawfully in an enclosed yard.7

[2] Mr Hastie-Sonnenberg now appeals on the basis that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and “inappropriate”.

Factual background

[3] The facts were summarised by Judge Turner in the sentencing indication. I adopt them.

Receiving the caravan

[4] In early September 2020, a caravan and trailer were stolen from a Christchurch address. In late July 2021, the caravan was advertised for sale on Facebook by a female associate of Mr Hastie-Sonnenberg. When prospective purchasers made

1      R v Hastie-Sonnenberg [2023] NZHC 24362.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(b); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 246 and 247(a); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
5      Sections 246 and 247(c); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
6      Section 202A(4)(a); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
7      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 29; maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $2000 fine.

contact about the caravan they spoke directly to Mr Hastie-Sonnenberg and paid the agreed upon sale price of $4,500 into a bank account as directed by him. However, the caravan was not delivered as the purchasers were later advised by the caravan’s lawful owner that it had been stolen. Mr Hastie-Sonnenberg said he would repay the money, but he has failed to do so.

Unlawfully in an enclosed yard

[5] On 9 December 2021, Mr Hastie-Sonnenberg entered an address in Woodend, Christchurch, by removing a large, immobilised tractor from a driveway. Once inside, he hooked up his vehicle with a rented trailer attached to a disused forklift and attempted to tow it away. He was unsuccessful in removing the forklift and left the premises, leaving the trailer at the scene.

Possession of a knife in a public place

[6] At about 11:30 pm on 9 July 2022, Mr Hastie-Sonnenberg was at a Christchurch service station. Police arrested him on an unrelated matter and upon searching he was found in possession of a medium-sized hunting knife concealed in his belt liner. He told police the…

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 Hastie-Sonnenberg v The King 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: [2024] NZHC 551
Decision Date: 14 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nathan George Hastie-Sonnenberg appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentence of two years 11 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive and inappropriate. The High Court of New Zealand considered the appeal, focusing on the starting point for methamphetamine offending, the uplift for previous convictions, and the discount for rehabilitative efforts. The Court found that while the starting point of four years’ imprisonment was appropriate, the uplift for previous convictions should be reduced to five per cent, and the rehabilitative discount increased to 15 per cent. These adjustments resulted in a final sentence of two years five months’ imprisonment. The appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was substituted with this new sentence. All other orders and sentences imposed concurrently remained.

Orders