Hoggart v The King - [2025] NZCA 573

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA190/2025
[2025] NZCA 573

BETWEEN	MARK DEAN HOGGART Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	9 October 2025
Court:	Cooke, van Bohemen and Gault JJ
Counsel:	H G de Groot and C A Brook for Appellant Z R Johnston and J A A Mara for Respondent
Judgment:	31 October 2025 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal out of time is granted.
BThe application for leave to adduce further evidence is granted.
C The appeal is allowed and the sentence imposed by the High Court is set aside.
D The proceedings are remitted to the High Court for resentencing.
EMr Hoggart is remanded in custody until resentencing. Any question of bail is to be determined in the High Court.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cooke J)

In February 2004, Mark Hoggart was sentenced to preventive detention following his guilty pleas to three charges,[1] wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm,[2] threatening to kill[3] and injuring with intent to injure.[4] The offending involved serious domestic-partner-related violence. He was 19 at the time of the offending, and 20 when sentenced.
[1]R v Hoggart HC Hamilton T030376, 19 February 2004 [sentencing notes].
[2]Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1). Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
[3]Section 306(1)(a). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
[4]Section 189(2). Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment.
Mr Hoggart remains in prison as a consequence of this sentence. He has been released on parole on two occasions but was recalled both times.
He now seeks leave to appeal his sentence out of time. Two arguments are advanced: first, that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence of preventive detention, as it did not have two qualifying expert reports of the kind required before the sentence of preventive detention can be imposed;[5] and secondly, that the sentence was plainly excessive in any event.

The offending

[5]Sentencing Act 2002, s 88(1)(b).

The offending giving rise to the sentence of preventive detention was summarised by Potter J in the sentencing notes, which we adopt.
In January 2003, Mr Hoggart went to a relative’s address with his girlfriend, the first victim. They drank alcohol and then went to the bedroom to sleep. When the victim awoke and went to get a cigarette, Mr Hoggart followed her, and an argument broke out with Mr Hoggart accusing her of having sex with his mother’s partner, the male victim. He threw her against the bedroom wall, and then backwards onto a lounge chair in the bedroom. He then grabbed her and began to strangle her for about five to ten seconds before she managed to push him away. She ran from the bedroom calling loudly for help, but he grabbed her again and threw her onto the bed. He then grabbed her by the hair and banged her head against the bedroom wall four or five times, and began choking her again, demanding she admit 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 Hoggart v The King

Details

AGLC: Hoggart v The King [2025] NZCA 573
Case: [2025] NZCA 573
Decision Date: 31 October 2025 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mark Dean Hoggart sought leave to appeal his sentence out of time and to adduce further evidence, challenging the validity of the sentence of preventive detention imposed by the High Court. The appeal related to serious domestic-partner-related violence committed when Hoggart was 19, for which he was sentenced to preventive detention at age 20. Hoggart argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence because it did not receive two qualifying expert reports, and that the sentence was excessive. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal out of time and to adduce further evidence, allowing the appeal and setting aside the sentence. It held that there was no jurisdiction to impose the sentence as one of the reports did not sufficiently address the risk of reoffending after the finite sentence term. The Court of Appeal remitted the case to the High Court for resentencing, remanding Hoggart in custody until resentencing, with any question of bail to be determined in the High Court.

Orders