Hone v The King
[2025] NZHC 1567
•13 June 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI 2025-404-124
[2025] NZHC 1567
BETWEEN MATHEW TRENT HONE
Appellant
AND
THE KING
Respondent
Hearing: 10 June 2025 Appearances:
S Shanahan for the Appellant C Purdon for the Respondent
Judgment:
13 June 2025
JUDGMENT OF HARVEY J
This judgment is delivered by me on 13 June 2025 at 3pm.
…………………………………………….
Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland
Counsel:
Annabel Maxwell-Scott, Barrister, Sentinel Chambers, Auckland (S Shanahan)
HONE v R [2025] NZHC 1567 [13 June 2025]
Introduction
[1] Mathew Hone pleaded guilty to five charges of indecent act on a child1 and two charges of indecent communication with a young person under 16.2 On 14 February 2025, he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment by Judge K Maxwell in the Auckland District Court.3 Mr Hone now appeals this sentence on the grounds that the starting point was too high and that insufficient reductions were provided for his guilty plea, psychological factors and rehabilitative efforts and prospects. The Crown opposes the appeal.
The offending
[2] At the time, Mr Hone was 31 to 33 years old, and the victim was seven to eight years old. Mr Hone’s partner and the victim’s mother were friends, and the complainant attended school with Mr Hone’s stepson. Between 1 January 2021 and 28 October 2022, the victim frequently saw Mr Hone at school when he collected his stepson. Mr Hone regularly approached her, picked her up for a hug, and on multiple occasions put his hands under her bottom and rubbed her vagina through her clothes.
[3] The other offending occurred during two sleepovers at Mr Hone’s house between 22 to 30 October 2022 when the victim was eight years old. At the first sleepover, Mr Hone called the victim to his computer and showed her sexually explicit content, including sexual activity between adults. On one occasion, Mr Hone pulled up the victim’s clothing to expose her breasts, and on another occasion he told her to sit on his lap. As she sat there with her legs either side of Mr Hone’s legs, he touched her vagina over the top of her clothing.
[4] During the second sleepover, Mr Hone called the victim to his computer and again showed her sexually explicit videos, rubbing his penis as he did so. Mr Hone then placed the victim’s hands on his exposed penis and showed her how to move her hands up and down. She tried to remove her hands, but he continued to use her hand
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3). Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 124A. Maximum penalty: three years’ imprisonment.
3 R v Hone [2025] NZDC 2750 [Decision under appeal].
to masturbate himself until he ejaculated onto her hand. At the second sleepover, Mr Hone also sat next to the victim while she watched television. He then removed her underpants and used an electric toothbrush to touch her vaginal area.
District Court decision
[5] The Judge considered the aggravating features of Mr Hone’s offending to be that: it was “very much pre-meditated”, it was repeat offending, the victim was young and vulnerable, there was a significant breach of trust, there was significant harm to the victim, the offending occurred across a year and a half, and the indecent acts were intrusive and intense.4 The Judge also concluded that Mr Hone’s offending to be more serious than that in Taylor v R.5 Instead, she found it was similar to the offending in J v R.6 Even though the latter case involved indecent acts against the offender’s own daughter, the Judge found this was not a material distinction on the facts of this case.7 The Judge then adopted a global starting point of five years’ imprisonment.
[6] The Judge applied a 15 per cent reduction for Mr Hone’s guilty plea. In doing so, her Honour noted that a 10 per cent reduction would normally have been expected because the guilty plea was made only one month before trial. However, the Judge accepted that a 15 per cent reduction was appropriate in this case as Mr Hone pleaded to a negotiated resolution — albeit the underlying facts remained broadly comparable.8
[7] The Judge then considered Mr Hone’s psychological report which addressed issues in his relationship, his view of the victim as a non-threatening source of sexual gratification, his misuse of substances and his background and childhood factors. Ultimately, her Honour considered that those factors, even if they could be shown to have been in some way causative of the offending, would not mitigate the seriousness of the offending. The sole exception was that the Judge provided a five per cent reduction in recognition of his self-report of offending against him as a child.9
4 Decision under appeal, above n 3, at [13]–[19].
5 Taylor v R [2022] NZHC 912.
6 J (CA670/2023) v R [2024] NZCA 454.
7 Decision under appeal, above n 3, at [22].
8 At [26].
9 At [27]–[30].
[8] Her Honour declined to provide any reduction for Mr Hone’s rehabilitative efforts or prospects. The Judge emphasised that Mr Hone continued to claim he was unable to recall the offending, and that the psychological and pre-sentence reports suggested Mr Hone blamed others for what occurred. Although, her Honour acknowledged Mr Hone had completed a workbook regarding methamphetamine self-help strategies, the Judge noted Mr Hone had been on bail for a couple of years without any evidence of any meaningful rehabilitation during that time.
Approach on appeal
[9] The approach to sentence appeals is well-settled. The Court must allow the appeal if satisfied that there has been an error in the sentence imposed and that a different sentence should be imposed.10 The sentence must be shown to be manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.11
Was the starting point too high?
[10] Ms Shanahan for Mr Hone submitted the Judge erred in equating his offending with that in J v R. Her Honour was wrong to find there was no material difference between offending against a biological daughter and offending against a child of a friend.12 Counsel contended that the sexual offending in J v R was worse than that of Mr Hone.13 Ms Shanahan argued that Mr Hone was charged with two counts of indecent communication with a young person under 16, which were not present in J v R. Nonetheless, counsel submitted that there is no palpable distinction in criminality because the offender in J v R also made similar attempts to arouse his victim by engaging in “dirty talk.” Ms Shanahan contended that, accordingly, Mr Hone should have received a lower starting point than in J v R.
10 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
11 Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [30]–[35].
12 Citing Donaldson v R [2019] NZCA 338 at [18].
13 The offending in J (CA670/2023) v R occurred over a one-year period with evidence supporting approximately five to 10 incidents of sexual offending. There was skin-on-skin contact when the victim was in the shower or bath and the offender thrusted his penis between her thighs back and forth. The offender ejaculated on one or two occasions. The offender also rubbed the victim’s vagina while in the shower or bath together at least once, and had the victim masturbate him with her hand at least once. The offender also showed the victim pornography on multiple occasions, often before sexually offending against her.
[11] Counsel argued that Mr Hone’s offending is more like that found in Taylor v R, where a starting point of three years’ imprisonment was upheld.14 Ms Shanahan suggested Taylor in some ways, involved more serious offending, but that, on balance, a slightly higher starting point would have been appropriate in Mr Hone’s case.
[12] In contrast, Mr Purdon for the Crown submitted that the Judge was correct in finding Mr Hone’s offending was more serious than that in Taylor v R. Counsel highlighted that Mr Taylor faced less charges (two charges of indecent assault of a child and two charges of indecent assault of a female between 12 to 16) and there was no skin-on-skin touching. Further, Mr Purdon contended that Mr Hone’s offending involved a broader range of offending.
[13] Counsel also noted the similar ages of the complainants in the present case and J v R, and that Mr Hone’s offending continued for a significantly longer period than the offending in J v R (22 months as opposed to 12 months). Although Mr Purdon recognised the very worst breach of trust may be that committed by a biological parent, counsel argued that the breach of trust by Mr Hone was still extremely significant — the complainant was entrusted to his care by the complainant’s mother, he was the sole adult responsible for her welfare when he offended against the complainant, and she had no choice but to trust him. Counsel submitted that the repeated offending by Mr Hone at the complainant’s school represented an additional degree of intrusiveness and breach of trust that was not present in J v R. Mr Purdon also contended that Mr Hone’s offending involved more intrusive touching than in J v R.
[14] More fundamentally, counsel referred to the Court’s comments that the higher ends of the sentencing range should not be “closed off” by past precedent, and that the gravity of sexual offending against children falling just short of sexual violation should not be diminished. Mr Purdon argued that the starting point of five years’ imprisonment was therefore within range.
14 Taylor v R, above n 5.
Discussion
[15] I consider that the Judge did not err when finding Mr Hone’s offending to be more serious than that in Taylor v R. In that case, the intensity and intrusiveness of the offending was far less severe. There was no skin-on-skin contact, no removal of clothing, no exposure to sexually explicit material, and no touching of the offender. This greater intensity and intrusiveness outweighs the longer duration and greater frequency of the offending in Taylor, the fact there were two victims, and the fact that the offender was in the position of step-father to the victims.
[16] The Judge was correct to compare Mr Hone’s case with J v R. Both involved exposing the victim to sexually explicit videos, skin-on-skin contact, removal of clothing and touching of the offender.15 In addition, as the victim was the offender’s daughter I agree with counsel that this can increase the breach of trust.16 On the other hand, Mr Hone used an electric toothbrush on the victim’s vaginal area and touched her inappropriately outside school. His offending also occurred over a longer period. On balance, Mr Hone’s offending and that in J v R are broadly comparable. I therefore agree with the Judge’s finding that the fact the victim is not Mr Hone’s child is not a material distinction because this difference is offset by other factors which make Mr Hone’s offending more serious than that in J v R.
[17] Overall, I find that the Judge did not err in adopting a starting point of five years’ imprisonment — the same starting point adopted in J v R.
Was the reduction for Mr Hone’s guilty plea insufficient?
[18] Mr Hone was originally charged on 24 November 2022. He pleaded guilty on 31 July 2024, approximately one month before his scheduled trial on 26 August 2024 and following a negotiated resolution. Ms Shanahan acknowledged Mr Hone’s guilty pleas were late but she submitted there were numerous delays that were no fault of Mr Hone. Counsel contended that Mr Hone entered guilty pleas as soon as practicable after the complainant’s evidential video interview was made available to him and
15 That said, both cases involved offending not present in the other. The offender in J v R thrust his penis between his daughter’s thighs, which was not present in Mr Hone’s case.
16 Donaldson v R, above n 12, at [18].
counsel. Ms Shanahan contended that Mr Hone had the right to review the evidence against him before entering his guilty pleas.
[19] Counsel also submitted that the laying of the second charge regarding Mr Hone’s own child (which was withdrawn) delayed the proceedings by one year, and the need to assess Mr Hone’s mental health and fitness for trial also delayed the entering of guilty pleas. Ms Shanahan also noted there was a delay due to counsel’s own cancer diagnosis and treatment. In such circumstances, counsel contended that a 20 per cent guilty plea reduction would have been appropriate.
Discussion
[20] The Court of Appeal has held that the sentencing judge is best placed to assess the value of a guilty plea, and that an appellate court ought not to interfere with it unless it is “wholly unsustainable”.17 In this case, I accept Mr Purdon’s submission that the issues raised by the defence have been accounted for by a reduction of 15 per cent, rather than the usual 10 per cent. I find nothing wholly unsustainable in such an adjustment. The Judge appropriately balanced the competing interests of the lateness of the pleas against the circumstances of the delays and resolution discussions.
Was the reduction for psychological factors insufficient?
[21] Ms Shanahan submitted that the Judge erred in finding Mr Hone’s substance abuse issues and previous sexual relationships had no causative link to the offending, or otherwise did not mitigate the seriousness of the offending. Counsel contended that Dr Jone’s evidence establishes that the offending occurred during a period where Mr Hone’s substance abuse and depression increased, while his self-image declined. She noted Dr Jone’s opinion that Mr Hone suffers from Major Depressive Disorder and long-standing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
[22] Ms Shanahan acknowledged that these factors do not excuse Mr Hone’s offending. Nevertheless, counsel argued that they do go towards explaining his mental
17 Clark v R [2020] NZCA 641 at [23].
state and mental health at the time. Ms Shanahan submitted a higher discount was warranted to recognise the factors raised in Mr Hone’s psychological report.
[23] Mr Purdon acknowledged that there may be a correlation between the offending and Mr Hone’s relationship difficulties, view of the victim as a non-threatening source of sexual gratification, misuse of substances and other factors. However, counsel submitted it was difficult to establish a nexus between these various factors and the present serious offending. Moreover, Mr Purdon referred to Mr Hone’s questionable narrative that he could not recall the offending — which both Dr Jones and the pre-sentence report writer doubted. Counsel also contended that, as held by the Judge, even if Mr Hone’s relationship and substance issues were causative of the offending in some way, this does not mitigate or reduce its seriousness.
Discussion
[24] Mr Hone’s mental health issues and consequent substance abuse may have been causatively connected to his offending. Yet it was open to the Judge to find that they do not necessarily mitigate or reduce the seriousness of his offending. With serious sexual offending against a child involving pre-meditation and grooming, the influence of Mr Hone’s mental health and his substance use may well be reduced or displaced. His offending was serious, planned and repetitive, and will have likely engaged Mr Hone, at various points over the 22 months of offending, in an assessment of the risk of detection thereby increasing his degree of agency. This can be contrasted to the situation if Mr Hone had only engaged in a one-off, opportunistic and unplanned act of sexual offending. Moreover, the seriousness of Mr Hone’s offending may itself engage the sentencing purposes and principles of deterrence, denunciation and community protection, and thereby reduce the role of his background in sentencing.18
[25] Overall, I do not consider the Judge erred in declining to grant additional reductions for the matters raised in Mr Hone’s psychological report beyond the five per cent provided regarding his own experience of sexual abuse as a child.
18 Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509 at [94].
Should a reduction have been given for rehabilitative efforts and prospects?
[26] Ms Shanahan submitted that the Judge erred in granting no reduction for Mr Hone’s rehabilitative efforts or prospects. Although Mr Hone denied any memory of the offending in his pre-sentence reports, counsel referred to Dr Jone’s claim that research shows denial and minimisation of offending has little effect on the probability of reconviction and, in some cases, actually reduces the likelihood. Ms Shanahan contended that Mr Hone’s denial of any recollection of the offending should not have a material effect on his rehabilitative efforts or prospects.
[27] Counsel highlighted that, despite the limited rehabilitation opportunities available in prison, Mr Hone was able to complete a methamphetamine self-help strategies workbook. While on bail Mr Hone had abstained from drugs and alcohol and engaged in a consistent exercise regime and diet. Ms Shanahan argued that this drastically improved his mental and physical health, alongside the support from his family, the mental health team at Waitakere Hospital and his personal trainer.
[28] Furthermore, counsel submitted that Mr Hone generally has strong rehabilitative prospects. He has no prior convictions for sexual offending, is intelligent and educated, and once released will be employed by his mother and uncle as a roofer. The psychological report assesses Mr Hone as having an average risk of sexual recidivism and as being unlikely to actively seek opportunities to commit further sexual offending.
[29] Conversely, Mr Purdon contended that no reduction was justified for Mr Hone’s rehabilitative efforts and prospects. Mr Hone’s formal steps towards rehabilitation consisted of completing a workbook. There was no evidence of attempts to engage in other rehabilitation programmes while in custody or on bail. Counsel argued that Mr Hone’s engagement in a consistent exercise regime and diet while on bail, though evidence of self-improvement, is not evidence of attempts at rehabilitation. Mr Purdon underscored that no evidence of this self-improvement was provided beyond Mr Hone’s mother’s affidavit. Apart from a prescription for depression medication and a psychiatric consultation two years prior to Mr Hone’s
remand in custody, Mr Purdon argued no further evidence of attempts to engage, or actual engagement, with a psychiatrist or mental health programme has been provided.
[30] Finally, counsel submitted that Mr Hone’s struggle to recollect the offending, and the blame he seemingly places on others for the offending, shows a lack of insight into and acceptance of the seriousness of the offending.
Discussion
[31] I do not consider that Mr Hone’s struggle to recollect the offending prevents him from demonstrating rehabilitative prospects. On the other hand, his tendency to blame the relationship for his offending suggests he has a limited insight into his own role in the offending, and that this lessens his genuine prospects for rehabilitation. In addition, Mr Hone has not demonstrated an active approach to his own formal rehabilitation. While his efforts to improve his physical health are commendable, and certainly so is his purported abstinence from substances, his psychological report confirms that the form of rehabilitation he needs is to address his mental health and past trauma. Furthermore, the evidence supporting Mr Hone’s self-improvement comes from his mother’s affidavit and is uncorroborated.
[32] Therefore, although it was open to the Judge to provide some recognition of Mr Hone’s informal steps towards his own recovery, a finding that Mr Hone had not done enough to warrant a discrete sentence reduction was also available. Fundamentally, the Judge was correct to conclude that during Mr Hone’s time on bail he did not pursue the kind of rehabilitation needed to properly address his risk of offending. In short, I detect no error in the learned Judge’s approach nor any other reason to interfere with her decision.
Decision
[33]The appeal is dismissed.
Harvey J
0
5
0