Honeybun v Police - [2022] NZHC 3445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2022-443-60

[2022] NZHC 3445

BETWEEN
AMY MARGARET HONEYBUN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 15 December 2022

Appearances:

N L Laird for the Appellant

R L Hicklin for the Respondent

Judgment:

15 December 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Solicitors/Counsel
Laird Legal Services Limited, New Plymouth Crown Solicitor, New Plymouth

HONEYBUN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 3445 [15 December 2022]

What happened?

[1] Between 9 May 2022 and 3 July 2022, Ms Amy Honeybun, now aged 34, shoplifted from different shops in New Plymouth: a $50 jacket; a $109 steamer; a
$119.99 coffee grinder; a duvet cover; a number of hair care devices valued at
$1589.92; a $399.99 jacket; and a $69.99 sweatshirt. Some of the offending was undertaken in the company of an associate and Ms Honeybun’s young child. She pleaded guilty to five charges of shoplifting items valued at less than $500,1 and one charge of shoplifting items valued at more than $1,000.2 She wrote a letter expressing her remorse. She has 23 previous convictions for shoplifting and five for other dishonesty offences.

[2] In April 2021, Ms Honeybun was sentenced to home detention for other offences, which she breached twice. She was admitted to bail in July 2022. On 8 September 2022, after she had pleaded guilty, Judge G F Hikaka, in the District Court at New Plymouth, granted her bail. This came with a very strong warning that if she was even tempted in the direction of breaching bail, failing to meet her obligations or reoffending, she would need to start planning for someone else to look after her son because she would not be in a position to do so.3 No incidents arose.

[3] The Department of Corrections assessed the proposed home detention address as technically feasible but Ms Honeybun as at high risk of re-offending and a medium risk of harm. Corrections reported that the consequences of home detention previously appear not to have deterred her from further offending. There were reports of two family harm incidents between Ms Honeybun and her former partner in August and October 2022. She was described as disruptive and disrespectful during her attendance at two of five sessions of a Departmental Short Motivation Programme and showed no interest in staying over at the marae. This was the third pre-sentence report to recommend imprisonment. The Department was not willing to recommend home detention until further issues could be investigated. Subsequent inquiries suggested that Ms Honeybun’s partner may have be residing at, or regularly frequenting, her

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 223(d): maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
2      Section 223(a): maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      New Zealand Police v Honeybun [2022] NZDC 17355 at [6]–[7].

proposed home detention address. Ms Honeybun’s victims were understandably frustrated by the impact of her offending.

[4] On 30 November 2022, Judge Hikaka sentenced Ms Honeybun.4 She was then some 19 weeks’ pregnant, a…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Honeybun v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NZHC 3445
Decision Date: 15 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Honeybun v Police was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, New Plymouth Registry. The appellant, Ms Amy Honeybun, challenged her sentence of imprisonment imposed by the District Court for multiple shoplifting offences. The nature of the dispute was whether the District Court's sentence should be converted to a sentence of home detention. The High Court found that the District Court's sentence was inappropriate and replaced it with a sentence of home detention.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the District Court had erred in not converting the sentence of imprisonment to one of home detention. The Court considered whether the District Court had adequately considered the relevant statutory provisions, the appellant's addiction, and the effects of imprisonment on her children. The High Court found that the District Court had failed to consider these factors, and that the sentence of imprisonment was disproportionate to the level of offending.

The High Court held that the District Court should have considered the desirability of keeping the offender in the community, the importance of rehabilitation for the appellant's addiction, and the effects of imprisonment on her children. The Court found that the sentence of imprisonment was disproportionate to the level of offending, and that home detention was a more appropriate sentence. The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence of imprisonment, and substituted it with a sentence of three months' home detention at the appellant's home. The Court also imposed conditions on the sentence, including that the appellant must remain the only adult resident of her home, not possess or consume any alcohol or drugs, attend assessment for a Women’s Medium Intensity Rehabilitation Programme, and attend and complete any counselling, treatment or programme as recommended by the assessment.

Orders