Hennessy v Police - [2025] NZHC 1536

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000733

[2025] NZHC 1536

BETWEEN
JACK DYLAN HENNESSY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 9 June 2025

Counsel:

J I C Schlebusch for Appellant E H Barnes for Respondent

Judgment:

12 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 June 2025 at 11.30 am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Johann Schlebusch (Puhoi) for Appellant Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

HENNESSY v POLICE [2025] NZHC 1536 [12 June 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Hennessy appeals his sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment imposed on him by Judge K J Glubb on 14 November 2024.1 He contends that the starting point of six years chosen by the Judge is too high and renders the end sentence manifestly excessive.

[2] Mr Schlebusch submits that the starting point, having regard to comparable cases, should be four-and-a-half years. He accepts as appropriate the total discount of 45 per cent granted by the Judge, and that would make the appropriate end sentence two-and-a-half years.

[3] I must allow Mr Hennessy’s appeal if the Judge made an error in the sentencing such that a different sentence should be imposed.2 If the end sentence is manifestly excessive then I will need to correct it.

Background

[4] Mr Hennessy, a 25-year-old Englishman, was recruited by criminals to come to New Zealand to take part in a fraudulent scheme to obtain money from members of the public.

[5] Mr Hennessy arrived in New Zealand on 9 June 2024 and the scheme was immediately put into effect. From 10 June 2024 to 24 June 2024, 21 victims across Auckland received telephone calls from criminals impersonating New Zealand police officers. They claimed to be conducting a covert operation requiring the victims’ co-operation. The Judge, in his sentencing notes, describes the scheme:

[5] The victims were instructed to withdraw large amounts of cash which the courier would collect from their homes. You acted as the courier in all instances. You picked up the cash using a code word known only to the scammers. You also played an integral role in this scam. The 21 victims are not known to one another.

[6] You were staying at an address in central Auckland, and you used the Co-operative taxis to ferry you around the city to make those collections it would seem and there is detail of that. It is a lengthy summary of facts which

1 Police v Hennessy [2024] NZDC 30105.
2 Section 250(2) Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

runs to some 21 pages. It is not my intention to read that into the record, but what I simply do is give, at least, an example of how this operated.

[7] At about 9 am on 10 June 2024 the victim received a call to her landline, she was 84 years of age living in Auckland, from a male posing to be Detective David Johnson and providing a badge number,…

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 Hennessy v Police

Details

AGLC: Hennessy v Police [2025] NZHC 1536
Case: [2025] NZHC 1536
Decision Date: 12 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hennessy v Police involves Jack Dylan Hennessy, who appeals his sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment imposed for his role in a fraudulent scheme targeting elderly members of the public in Auckland. The appeal contends that the starting point of six years chosen by the sentencing judge is too high, rendering the final sentence manifestly excessive. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate and if the starting point was correctly assessed given the nature and severity of the offences. The appeal hinged on the comparison of the starting point with similar cases and the appropriateness of the discounts applied.

The court considered several factors in assessing the appeal. It examined the severity and nature of the offending, which involved 25 counts of obtaining by deception, impersonation of police officers, and escaping from police custody. The court also evaluated the discounts applied for early guilty pleas, remorse, efforts in custody, and the fact that Hennessy was a foreign national. The court concluded that the starting point of six years was well within the appropriate range, given the aggravating factors such as the significant amount stolen and the vulnerability of the victims. The court found that the 10% discount for remorse was generous as Hennessy had not taken steps to assist in recovering the stolen funds. The appeal was ultimately dismissed as the sentence was deemed not manifestly excessive.

The court upheld the original sentence, finding no error in the judge's assessment and application of the sentencing principles. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment was affirmed.

Orders