Horne v Police - [2025] NZHC 3232

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,…

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 Horne v Police

Details

AGLC: Horne v Police [2025] NZHC 3232
Case: [2025] NZHC 3232
Decision Date: 29 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Zane Bryson Horne appeals his sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment, imposed for multiple assaults, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The appellant was sentenced by Judge Zohrab for three separate incidents of assault, the most serious of which was an assault with intent to injure. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, represented an error of principle, or if there were exceptional circumstances warranting a different sentence.

The court examined the sentencing analysis conducted by Judge Zohrab, noting that the starting point for the first assault was appropriately set at 15 months, given its severity. The court found that the starting points for the second and third assaults, while possibly overestimated, did not render the overall sentence manifestly excessive. The court further found that the uplifts and reductions applied by Judge Zohrab were justified, and that the overall sentence of 22 months was proportionate to the offending.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming that the sentence imposed was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

Final orders: The appeal is dismissed.

Orders