Hessian v Police - [2025] NZHC 683

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2025-412-008, 009, 010, 011

[2025] NZHC 683

BETWEEN
MICHAEL PATRICK HESSIAN

Appellant

AND

POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 March 2025 via AVL from Wellington

Appearances:

R Morton for Appellant

J C Collins for Respondent

Judgment:

27 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] Michael Hessian appeals his sentence of two years and eight months’ imprisonment1 on one charge each of assault on a person in a family relationship (representative),2 driving while suspended (third or subsequent),3 refusing to give a blood sample (third or subsequent),4 driving dangerously,5 and being an unlicensed driver and failing to comply with prohibition.6 The end sentence incorporated a successful application by the Crown to re-sentence Mr Hessian on charges for which he was previously sentenced to intensive supervision, which he breached by committing this index offending.

1      New Zealand Police v Hessian [2025] NZDC 1523 [2025 sentencing decision of Judge Flatley].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 194A; maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(c) and 32(4); maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment; mandatory disqualification for one year or more unless s 81 of the Act applies.
4      Sections 60(1)(a) and (3) and 72(1)(e); maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment; mandatory disqualification for more than one year unless s 81 of the Act applies.
5      Section 35(1)(b); maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment; mandatory disqualification for six months or more unless s 81 of the Act applies.
6      Section 52(1)(c); maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding $10,000.

Hessian v Police [2025] NZHC 683 [27 March 2025]

[2] His previous charges consisted of one charge each of assault on a person in a family relationship,7 threatening to kill,8 procuring or possessing methamphetamine,9 possessing utensils for methamphetamine use,10 and breaching release conditions.11

[3] The Judge also imposed a disqualification period of two years from 29 January 2025 and made a protection order against Mr Hessian in favour of the victim of the family violence offending and her daughter.

[4]Mr Hessian contends the sentence was manifestly excessive.

What happened?

[5] At the time of the index offending, Mr Hessian was serving a sentence of intensive supervision for family violence charges against the same victim, together with methamphetamine related charges. The Judge re-sentenced Mr Hessian on those charges in the decision under appeal by quashing the sentence of intensive supervision and adding an uplift to the sentence for the index offending. The quantum of that uplift is challenged on appeal.

The previous offending and sentence

[6] On 6 December 2022, Mr Hessian was found to possess 2.5 grams of methamphetamine and a methamphetamine pipe. This was the subject of one charge each of possessing methamphetamine and possessing a methamphetamine pipe. Ten days later, on 16 December, he was sentenced to come up if called upon on one charge of breach of release conditions, which had occurred prior to December. On 23 February 2023, Mr Hessian pleaded guilty to…

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 Hessian v Police

Details

AGLC: Hessian v Police [2025] NZHC 683
Case: [2025] NZHC 683
Decision Date: 27 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Hessian appeals his two-year and eight-month imprisonment sentence on multiple charges including assault, driving while suspended, and refusing to give a blood sample. The previous charges were assault in a family relationship, threatening to kill, possessing methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine utensils, and breaching release conditions. The court imposed a two-year disqualification period and a protection order for the victim and her daughter. The appeal focuses on the contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court had to determine whether the uplifts given by the Judge for re-sentencing and for previous offending were excessive and if they overlapped. The appeal argued that the Judge failed to credit Hessian's rehabilitative efforts, the four-month uplift for re-sentencing was excessive, and the 10 per cent uplift for prior offending was too high.

The court found that the four-month uplift for re-sentencing was excessive. The Judge had imposed a four-month uplift for re-sentencing, based on an estimation that a previous Judge would have sentenced Hessian to 15 or 16 months in prison. However, this was not a definite end sentence, and the uplift was not justified given the circumstances. The 10 per cent uplift for prior offending was found to be appropriate, reflecting Hessian's continued family violence convictions and offending while on intensive supervision. The court also found no error in the Judge declining to grant a credit for rehabilitative efforts, given Hessian's lack of meaningful engagement across multiple opportunities to participate in rehabilitative programmes.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to two years and four months' imprisonment.

Orders