[1] On 27 March 2025, Judge Andrée Wiltens sentenced Jessica Higgott to ten months’ imprisonment1 after she pleaded guilty to burglary2 and permitting her premises to be used for drug offending.3 She appeals her sentence on two grounds:

(a)first, that the Judge erred in refusing to impose a sentence of home detention or community detention; and

(b)second, that if imprisonment was appropriate, the sentence was manifestly excessive due to errors in the judgment.

1      Police v Higgott [2025] NZDC 7594.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 12(1); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.

HIGGOTT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1388 [29 May 2025]

The facts

[2] On 28 March 2024, Ms Higgott watched courier parcels being delivered to the victim’s address. Once the courier driver left, Ms Higgott opened a gate and entered the property. She took two parcels from the front doorstep of the property, walked towards a nearby tree, and opened them. The parcels contained two pairs of Ugg boots valued at $170. Ms Higgott took the boots for herself. She later put them on Facebook marketplace.4

[3] On 31 December 2024, the police executed a search warrant on Ms Higgott’s address and found 13 well-tended one metre tall cannabis plants growing in the rear yard of the property. The plants belonged to Ms Higgott’s son, who is 16 years old.

District Court sentencing decision

[4] The Judge noted Ms Higgott’s “terrible record”, in which she has received progressively more restrictive outcomes in accordance with the hierarchy of sentences. Ms Higgott’s last four sentences were to home detention. However, she offended again soon after completing each sentence.5

[5] In relation to the current offending, the Judge accepted “this is not the most serious of burglaries”, but observed it was “blatantly dishonest” and that Ms Higgott had many previous convictions for dishonesty. In relation to those, the Judge said:6
You obviously have issues with drugs which is what causes you to behave in this fashion and you seem to not have done anything about that…

[6] The Judge disagreed with the pre-sentence (PAC) report writer’s recommendation of a sentence of home detention, but without specifically articulating why he did not consider that sentence to be appropriate.7 However, it is clear from the previous paragraph of his sentencing notes that the Judge was concerned that non- custodial sentences have not been effective to deter Ms Higgott from continuing to

4 Ms Higgott denies she attempted to sell the boots on Facebook but merely wanted to check their value.
5 Police v Higgott, above n 1, at [4].
6 At [5].
7 At [6].

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 Higgott v Police

Details

AGLC: Higgott v Police [2025] NZHC 1388
Case: [2025] NZHC 1388
Decision Date: 29 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Higgott v Police involves an appeal by Jessica Aroha Higgott against her sentence for burglary and permitting her premises to be used for drug offending. The sentencing decision was made by Judge Andrée Wiltens in the District Court, who imposed a sentence of ten months' imprisonment. The appeal focuses on two grounds: the refusal to impose a sentence of home detention or community detention, and the alleged excessiveness of the imprisonment sentence. The hearing took place on 29 May 2025, before Judge McHerron.

The legal issues in the appeal revolve around whether the District Court erred in its sentencing decision by refusing to impose a sentence of home detention and by imposing what Higgott considers an excessive sentence of imprisonment. The appeal court must determine if there was a material error in the sentencing process that led to an inappropriate end sentence. Key considerations include the appropriateness of the uplift for Higgott's previous convictions, the potential credit for time spent on electronic monitoring (EM) bail, the consideration of genuine remorse, and the balance between imprisonment and home detention given Higgott's circumstances.

Judge McHerron found that while the uplift for Higgott's previous convictions was stern, it was not excessive, considering her extensive history of dishonesty offences. The court was reluctant to grant credit for time spent on EM bail due to a breach of bail conditions. While the PAC report suggested genuine remorse, the court found it was open to the District Court to place little weight on this factor given Higgott's criminal history. The critical error identified by Judge McHerron was the District Court's refusal to impose a sentence of home detention. The court found that the District Court had not adequately considered all relevant purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act, particularly Higgott's role as the primary caregiver for two young children and the decline in her rate of offending. These factors, combined with the relatively minor nature of the current offences, warranted a less restrictive sentence.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of ten months' imprisonment was set aside. Instead, a sentence of five months' home detention was imposed, with conditions specified in the PAC report, including attendance at problem gambling counselling and programmes aimed at reducing the risk of re-offending.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal, set aside the original sentence of ten months' imprisonment, and impose a sentence of five months' home detention, with the conditions as outlined in the PAC report.

Orders