Houghton v The King - [2025] NZHC 608

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-40

CRI-2025-409-41 [2025] NZHC 608

BETWEEN
JARROD ANTONY HOUGHTON

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 17 March 2025

Appearances:

K L Chalmers and H May for Appellant B W D Alexander for Respondent

Judgment:

21 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 March 2025 at 3 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

HOUGHTON v R [2025] NZHC 608 [21 March 2025]

[1] Jarrod Houghton was sentenced in the Christchurch District Court to three years’ imprisonment by Judge Kellar1 on charges of burglary,2 unlawful possession of a firearm,3 possession of a methamphetamine pipe,4 receiving,5 and the unlawful conversion of a vehicle or other conveyance (being the unlawful taking of a bicycle).6

[2] Mr Houghton was sentenced on 13 March 2024 and seeks leave to appeal his three-year term of imprisonment out of time.7 The appellant and respondent’s submissions and the appellant’s affidavit all state that an end sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment was imposed. However, Judge Kellar, after referring to the time Mr Houghton had spent on electronically monitored bail (EM bail) states that “… the overall sentence… is one of three years’ imprisonment”.8

[3] Mr Houghton brings his appeal on the basis the Judge erred in his approach to setting the starting point for his dishonesty offending; that a greater deduction should have been applied for the time he spent on EM bail and for various personal mitigating factors.

Factual background

[4] The burglary charge arises out of Mr Houghton and an associate entering the grounds of a local boarding school in the early hours of the morning and breaking into a locked bicycle storage shed. Mr Houghton cut the lock using bolt cutters and five bikes were removed from the shed and taken to a nearby property over the course of a number of trips. Two of the bicycles have since been recovered, but the combined value of the outstanding three bicycles was approximately $8,000.

[5] The unlawful possession of a firearm charge arises from the execution of a search warrant at Mr Houghton’s address. During the search a cutdown double-

1      R v Houghton [2024] NZDC 5693.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a)—maximum sentence: 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)—maximum sentence: four years’ imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $4,000.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and (3)—maximum sentence: one year of imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $500.
5      Crimes Act, ss 246(1) and 247(a)—maximum sentence: seven years’ imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act, s 226(1)—maximum sentence: seven years’ imprisonment.
7      R v Houghton, above n 1.
8 At [18].

barrelled shotgun containing two rounds of ammunition was located. Also found during the search was small bag that contained empty point bags and a glass pipe for smoking methamphetamine.

[6] In respect of the unlawful taking of…

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 Houghton v The King

Details

AGLC: Houghton v The King [2025] NZHC 608
Case: [2025] NZHC 608
Decision Date: 21 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jarrod Houghton was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for burglary, unlawful possession of a firearm, possession of a methamphetamine pipe, receiving stolen property, and unlawful conversion of a vehicle. The Christchurch District Court Judge calculated separate starting points for the burglary, unlawful taking, receiving, and firearms charges, then reduced the overall starting point by six months to four years. A 15% reduction was applied for guilty pleas and a 5% reduction for rehabilitative steps, resulting in an effective sentence of three years and three months. Houghton appeals the sentence on three grounds: the Judge should have applied a single starting point for the dishonesty offences; insufficient credit was given for time spent on electronically monitored bail; and greater discount should have been given for personal mitigating factors.

The High Court found that the approach to setting the starting point was debatable but not materially significant. The court also found that while greater credit could have been given for time spent on electronically monitored bail, any reduction would be minor and not materially affect the overall sentence. Finally, the court found that no further credit was warranted for personal mitigating factors, given the overall deductions and discounts already applied.

The appeal was dismissed. The effective sentence of three years’ imprisonment was within the range available to the sentencing Judge and not manifestly excessive.

Orders