Hose v Police - [2025] NZHC 2260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000290

[2025] NZHC 2260

BETWEEN
MARLENE HOSE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 July 2025

Appearances:

R Roy for Appellant

J Kim for Respondent

Judgment:

11 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 August 2025 at 3pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors/Counsel: Mr Roy, Auckland Kayes Fletcher Walker

HOSE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2260 [11 August 2025]

What this appeal is about and the result

[1] Ms Marlene Hose was sentenced in the Pukekohe District Court in May 2025 by District Court Judge GT Winter to six months’ home detention.1

[2] The sentence was for 15 charges of theft.2 The Judge was satisfied the offences were largely planned and targeted commercial shoplifting, with a co-offender(s), involving a total value of $13,131.51. The Judge was prepared to accept Ms Hose’s share was just under $8,000.

[3] The thrust of this appeal, well presented and argued by Mr Roy, was that the Judge erred by not adequately reducing Ms Hose’s home detention sentence to reflect her time already spent in custodial remand for the offending. Consequently, Mr Roy submits the sentence is manifestly excessive.

[4] Mr Kim, for the police, acknowledges that what he calls an arithmetical error has occurred with respect to Ms Hose’s time spent on remand. With respect, it was a little more than an arithmetical error. In any case, he agrees this has resulted in a sentence that is manifestly excessive. Mr Kim accepts that the appeal should be allowed. He submits a sentence of three months’ home detention should be imposed, which is exactly Mr Roy’s submission.

[5] I uphold the appeal as I agree with the reasoning of both counsel. What follows are my reasons.

The offending

[6] The offending occurred between 20 September 2024 to 10 February 2025. It involved various retail stores and occurred in four main tranches, each interrupted by Ms Hose’s arrest and then her re-admission to bail.

1 New Zealand Police v Hose [2025] NZDC 11082.
2 There were four charges of theft under $500, Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d), maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment; six charges of theft between $500 and $1,000, ss 219 and 223(c), maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment; and five charges of theft over $1,000, ss 219 and 223(b), maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

[7] Given that the appeal is successful on a technical ground, there is no need to say more about the facts than that the thefts ranged from grocery items stolen from Countdown and Super Liquor (at the lowest end), through to theft of clothing, tools and toolboxes, on some occasions of more than $1,000 in value.

The Judge’s decision

[8] No issue is taken with the Judge’s 18-month starting point to reflect the offending globally. Nor can issue be taken with the six-month reduction for Ms Hose’s guilty pleas and…

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 Hose v Police

Details

AGLC: Hose v Police [2025] NZHC 2260
Case: [2025] NZHC 2260
Decision Date: 11 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Marlene Hose appealed against her sentence of six months’ home detention imposed by the Pukekohe District Court. The appeal was centred around whether the sentence adequately accounted for the time Hose spent in custodial remand before her sentencing. Hose’s counsel argued that the District Court Judge erred by not reducing the home detention sentence to reflect the time already spent in custody, rendering the sentence manifestly excessive. The New Zealand Police, represented by counsel, acknowledged an arithmetical error had occurred but further argued this led to a sentence that was excessively long. They agreed that the appeal should be upheld and that a sentence of three months’ home detention should be imposed.

The Court examined the principles governing home detention sentences under the Sentencing Act 2002. Home detention can only be imposed if the offender would otherwise receive a short-term sentence of imprisonment of 24 months or less. The length of the home detention sentence is typically about half of the equivalent prison sentence, unless there is a compelling reason to deviate from this rule. The Court also considered the two judicial approaches to factoring in time spent on remand when calculating a home detention sentence: the “two for one” approach and the “one for one” approach. The Court found that the “one for one” approach, which credits the defendant equally for time spent in custody, was fairer and more consistent with the dominant judicial approach.

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the District Court Judge had not adequately addressed how he factored in the time spent on remand, leading to an error of principle. The Judge should have adopted the “one for one” approach, which would have resulted in a sentence of three months’ home detention. Therefore, the Court upheld the appeal, quashed the original sentence, and replaced it with a sentence of three months’ home detention.

Orders