Horne v Police
[2025] NZHC 3232
•29 October 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA MĀWHERA ROHE
CRI-2025-418-13
[2025] NZHC 3232
BETWEEN ZANE BRYSON HORNE
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: 23 October 2025 Appearances:
S J Sluis for Appellant
S A Teki-Clark for Respondent
Judgment:
29 October 2025
JUDGMENT OF BOLDT J
(Sentence appeal)
Introduction
[1] On 20 August 2025 Judge Zohrab sentenced the appellant, Zane Horne, to 22 months’ imprisonment on charges of assault with intent to injure, common assault under the Crimes Act 1961 and common assault under the Summary Offences Act 1981.1 Mr Horne appeals against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.
Background
[2] The three assaults for which Mr Horne was sentenced occurred on discrete occasions over the course of a year. All involved different victims. The first — the assault with intent to injure — was the most serious.
1 Police v Horne [2025] NZDC 20810 [Decision under appeal]. Crimes Act, s 193. Maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment. Crimes Act, s 196. Maximum penalty one year ’s imprisonment. Summary Offences Act 1981, s 9. Maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or $4,000 fine.
HORNE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 3232 [29 October 2025]
First assault: assault with intent to injure
[3] The summary of facts records that Mr Horne and the first victim were in a short-term relationship. On 17 March 2024 they were at the victim’s home in Christchurch. Mr Horne put the victim in a headlock, wrapping his arms around each other in front of her neck and squeezing. At the same time he pushed up against her chest making it hard for her to breathe. She tried to resist and Mr Horne briefly released his grip. He then put her into a headlock again and squeezed even more tightly.
[4] Mr Horne suddenly released the victim and hit her in the jaw with his left forearm. Finally, he kicked her in the genital area with his right heel. She received bruising to her face and ribs, and damaged vision in her left eye which required ongoing medical treatment. In a victim impact statement written more than a year after the assault, she said her eye had “slowly recovered”.
Second assault: Crimes Act assault
[5] The second victim had been in a relationship with Mr Horne for a little over six months. On 2 October 2024, he and the victim were in his bedroom and had a prolonged argument. Each time the victim tried to get up and leave, Mr Horne grabbed her and pushed her down onto the mattress. After doing that three times, he put his arm around her and tried to push her out of the bedroom. When she resisted he punched her in the back of the head with a closed fist, then pushed and shoved her until she left the house.
Third assault: Summary Offences Act assault
[6] The third assault — the Summary Offences Act assault — occurred on 6 March 2025. The victim, a man Mr Horne did not know, heard shouting in his street and went outside to investigate. He encountered Mr Horne, who began yelling and swearing at him, then punched the victim on the left side of his temple with full force. Mr Horne grabbed the victim, threw him to the ground and placed him in a headlock for about five seconds.
Criminal history
[7] Mr Horne has 39 previous convictions. His family violence convictions include common assault, assaulting a female, assault with intent to injure and wilful damage. He has a conviction for breaching a protection order and has been involved in more than 25 family violence callouts between 2007 and 2024.
[8] Mr Horne was most recently imprisoned in 2021 on a charge of burglary. In 2017 he was imprisoned on multiple charges including burglary, family violence and breaching release conditions. The pre-sentence report assessed Mr Horne as being at high risk of continuing to commit acts of violence towards female partners and other victims.
District Court sentencing
[9] There was no dispute at sentencing that cumulative sentences were appropriate. Apart from the fact all three charges involved violence on the part of Mr Horne, the three episodes were unconnected.2
[10] Guided by the approach of the Court of Appeal in Tamihana v R,3 Judge Zohrab adopted a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment for the first assault, then selected cumulative starting points of eight months’ and three months’ imprisonment for the second and third assaults respectively.4 The Judge suggested that adding the three starting points together would give a combined starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment. As Mr Sluis, on behalf of Mr Horne, pointed out, the correct combined figure was actually 26 months, but in light of the Judge’s next steps nothing turned on that.
[11] The Judge reduced the combined starting point to 24 months on a totality basis (or, as the Judge put it, “looking at [the offending] as a job lot”).5 He applied a two-month uplift to reflect the fact the second and third assaults occurred while
2 Sentencing Act 2002, s 84(1).
3 Tamihana v R [2015] NZCA 169.
4 Decision under appeal, above n 1, at [16]–[18].
5 At [19].
Mr Horne was on bail and added a further one-month uplift to reflect Mr Horne’s criminal history.6
[12] The Judge noted there had been a delay between the first assault and Mr Horne’s plea. Mr Sluis advised that in all three cases Mr Horne originally faced more serious charges which were reduced shortly before his pleas in June 2025. The Judge applied a 20 per cent reduction to reflect Mr Horne’s pleas of guilty, though he added that in doing so he was “being merciful”.7
[13] After applying the reductions and uplifts, the Judge sentenced Mr Horne to 22 months’ imprisonment. The final sentence comprised three cumulative sentences
— 12 months’ imprisonment for the first assault, eight months for the second and two months for the third.
[14] The Judge concluded, standing back, that a sentence at that level was a proportionate response to the offending. While it was open to him to consider home detention, the Judge decided it would not be appropriate to convert the sentence given Mr Horne’s history of family violence and his poor record of compliance with court orders, release conditions and community-based sentences.8
The appeal
[15] The approach to appeals against sentence is well settled. Under s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, I must dismiss the appeal unless I am satisfied, for any reason, that there was an error in the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed. In accordance with orthodox principle, an appeal can be allowed only if the sentence was manifestly excessive, represented an error of principle, or if there are exceptional circumstances.9
[16] My focus is on the final sentence the Judge imposed. It does not particularly matter how he constructed it as long as the final sentence was reasonably available.10
6 At [20].
7 At [21].
8 At [23] and [25].
9 Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] NZLR 482 at [33]–[39].
10 Mita v R [2012] NZCA 137 at [28].
If the same outcome could have been reached by a different route, the sentence will not be manifestly excessive. 11
Discussion
[17] Mr Sluis asked me to revisit some elements of the sentencing analysis while leaving those which were favourable to Mr Horne untouched. It is not uncommon for appellants in sentence appeals to seek to “bank” helpful aspects of the sentencing analysis, while seeking to challenge others. That approach is usually doomed to fail. The only real issue in this case is whether it was open to Judge Zohrab to conclude that 22 months’ imprisonment was an appropriate and proportionate sentencing response when the three episodes of offending were considered together.
[18] Mr Sluis submitted the eight-month starting point for the second assault was too high. While Mr Horne pushed the victim back onto the bed three times and struck her once in the back of the head, he submitted that assault was not a particularly serious one. In addition, Mr Sluis submitted the two month uplift to reflect the fact Mr Horne was on bail when he committed the second and third was excessive.
[19] At the same time, Mr Sluis accepted that several parts of Judge Zohrab’s analysis were generous to Mr Horne. For example, the first assault was very serious. It involved two episodes where Mr Horne applied pressure to the victim’s neck. He was originally charged with strangulation, though that charge was withdrawn in favour of the assault with intent to injure charge to which he pleaded guilty. Mr Sluis submitted the fact Mr Horne applied pressure to the victim’s neck with his arms rather than his hands meant it technically fell short of the definition of strangulation in s 189A of the Crimes Act.12
[20] I doubt that distinction would have helped Mr Horne much if he had maintained his not guilty plea. It is clear he applied pressure to the victim’s neck and that the combination of the headlock and pressure to her chest made it difficult for her
11 Ripia v R [2011] NZCA 101 at [15].
12 The relevant definition part of the definition under s 189A of the Crimes Act provides that strangulation is committed when the defendant intentionally or recklessly impedes the victim’s normal breathing, blood circulation, or both by applying pressure on, or to, the victim’s throat or neck.
to breathe. In any event, whether or not the two headlocks strictly qualify as strangulation, I am satisfied they seriously aggravated the first assault. The victim impact statement records that the victim still suffers physical discomfort. Moreover, she is still traumatised by the attack and takes medication to deal with recurring nightmares.
[21]In Shramka v R, the Court of Appeal observed:13
[23] … As the Law Commission noted, an abuser who strangles a victim may not be intending to kill, but is demonstrating that he can kill. As the victim fears for her life and is unable to effectively resist, strangulation “induces behavioural and emotional reactions that facilitate coercive control”.
[22] The combination of the headlocks and the fact Mr Horne struck the victim in the jaw and kicked her in her genital area meant a starting point considerably greater than 15 months would have been available to the Judge. Mr Sluis accepted the first assault was a prolonged and nasty attack.
[23] I agree with Mr Sluis that the second assault was less serious and may not, on its own, have warranted a starting point of eight months’ imprisonment. Having said that, I consider the Judge underestimated the seriousness of the third assault. Although Mr Horne had the benefit of a reduction in the charge, an unprovoked attack on a stranger, which included a full-force blow to the temple followed by a headlock, could have sustained a starting point approaching the six month maximum if it had stood alone. It was only good fortune that the victim was not more seriously hurt.
[24] I do not agree that the two month uplift to reflect the fact the second and third assaults occurred while Mr Horne was on bail was excessive. Breaches of bail and offending on bail always represent a breach of the Court’s trust, and a meaningful uplift will usually be appropriate. Indeed, given Mr Horne’s appalling record of breaching his protection order, release conditions and community-based sentences, a greater uplift may have been available. In addition, Mr Horne’s overall criminal history, and in particular his record of family violence, could have supported a greater uplift than the single month selected by the Judge.
13 Shramka v R [2022] NZCA 299, [2022] 3 NZLR 348.
[25] Finally, Mr Sluis accepted that Mr Horne was fortunate to receive a 20 per cent discount in recognition of his guilty pleas. Mr Horne maintained his not guilty plea to the first assault for more than a year, and in all three cases Mr Horne pleaded guilty only after more serious charges were withdrawn.14
[26] Mr Sluis accepted that Mr Horne received a considerable benefit from the reduction in the charges. As the Supreme Court observed in Hessell v R, guilty pleas are often “the result of understandings reached by accused and prosecutors” and the acceptance of a plea to a lesser charge can be a concession in itself. To give the same credit for a guilty plea without regard to the circumstances of the plea can amount to a double benefit.15 Mr Sluis acknowledged it would have been open to the Judge to extend only a 15 per cent reduction to reflect Mr Horne’s pleas.
[27] While the Judge may have overestimated the seriousness of the second assault, Mr Horne could not have complained if he had chosen higher starting points for the first and third. In addition, I agree the 20 per cent reduction for Mr Horne’s pleas was merciful, as was the one month uplift for his extensive criminal history. Considering the case in the round, it would have been open to the Judge to impose a sentence of more than two years, which would have left Mr Horne’s fate in the hands of the Parole Board. There can be no suggestion the final sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive.
Result
[28]The appeal is dismissed.
Boldt J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Christchurch
14 The first assault was originally the subject of several charges including strangulation. In the case of the second and third assaults, Mr Horne was originally charged with assault on a person in a family relationship and Crimes Act assault respectively.
15 Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135 [2011] 1 NZLR 607 at [62].
6
0