Jones v Police

[2025] NZHC 2172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2025-463-000046

[2025] NZHC 2172

BETWEEN

TAMAROA JONES

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:	31 July 2025
Counsel:	T J Conder for Appellant L J Clay for Respondent
Judgment:	4 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 August 2025 at 2.30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Holland Beckett (Tauranga) for Appellant Pollett Legal (Tauranga) for Respondent

JONES v POLICE [2025] NZHC 2172 [4 August 2025]

Introduction

[1]                Mr Jones appeals his sentence of two years and seven months’ imprisonment imposed on him by Judge W Lawson on 19 March 2025.1

[2]Mr Jones was sentenced on three charges of burglary.2

[3]                The appeal is brought on a narrow ground; it is that the Judge erred in not affording Mr Jones a discount of three months for his remorse and his prospects for rehabilitation.

[4]                I must allow Mr Jones’s appeal if I find the Judge erred and that a different sentence should be imposed.3

[5]                Given that the appeal is brought on the basis that the term of imprisonment imposed is too lengthy, I would find a correctable error if I conclude the sentence is manifestly excessive.

Background

[6]I take the factual background from the Judge’s sentencing notes:

[2]        … [I]n the early hours of 25 August 2024, the defendant entered a business, Independent Traffic Control business. Whilst in that property, he entered an unlocked vehicle. He entered the vehicle, started it and drove through  the  padlocked  gates. The  vehicle  was  a  utility  vehicle  valued at

$30,000. The vehicle was later located close to where the defendant lives.

[3]        More concerning were the burglaries of what are dwelling houses. On 1 September between 7.30 and 8.30 pm, the defendant entered Ocean Shores villas which is a retirement village. He entered unit 12A by reaching through the garage window and then entering the dwelling itself. Whilst in that dwelling, he took some milk, but the significant aspect here was that the occupant, who was 80 years old, was present at the time. After taking that bottle of milk he left and went to villa number 19. He broke the lounge window, gained entry and stole multiple items, including overseas currency, the passports of the victim’s deceased husband, a marriage certificate, a diamond ring, necklaces, broaches, gold bands and some medication. The victim in that burglary is an 86-year-old, retiree. She filed a victim impact statement saying that her husband has passed away and the items taken are,

1      Police v Jones [2025] NZDC 6758.

2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

3      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).

sentimental and highly personal. Those personal items were gifts to her from her late husband and so the impact on her in relation to this burglary has been significant. The money was money left over from trips that she had made overseas that she was intending to potentially use again.

[7]                Mr Jones’s relevant personal history was described by the Judge:

[4]        The defendant, Mr Jones, has a number of previous convictions, in fact, a significant history of criminal behaviour. He has got 13 previous convictions for burglary. He has additional dishonesty convictions for using a document, receiving stolen property, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle and he has multiple theft convictions.

[5]        The pre-sentence report tells me that Mr Jones is 33 years old. His history of offending is described as dishonesty and that this offending is a continuation of this dishonesty. He is assessed as a medium risk of harm. The report says that the defendant accepts responsibility but attempts to blame others for their influence over him in relation to this.

[6]        A significant aspect of this offending, although it is not mentioned in the summary of facts, is that there was a co-defendant involved. There was an element of planning and two defendants combined. He entered a private dwelling and took rather a lot of items. The reparation schedule says that those items were valued at $3,856.

[7]        The defendant is a recidivist burglar. He also has several convictions for dishonesty. These were all burglaries by night or in the late evening and one, particularly concerning, was that the resident was within the dwelling that he entered which the courts have clearly and repeatedly said is a well-known aggravating feature because of the risks that are associated with a possible confrontation. The second victim was not present but lost valuable items. Both victims, in my view, were vulnerable. The nature of the property was obvious, it was rest home village, and the items taken are highly personal. The factors that aggravate this type of offending are almost all present which justifies higher start points of imprisonment.

The sentence

[8]       The Judge took the two burglaries at the retirement village as the lead offences. He assessed a starting point of three years’ imprisonment and commented that it could have been higher.

[9]       The Judge considered that, by itself, the burglary of the commercial property might justify a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment.

[10]     Adjusting for totality, the Judge reached an overall starting point of three years and four months’ imprisonment.

[11]     As to discounts, the Judge afforded 25 per cent for the entry of guilty pleas but declined to give credit for the letter handed up by Mr Jones which spoke to remorse and rehabilitation.

[12]     Finally, the Judge increased the end sentence by one month to account for  Mr Jones’s previous convictions.

The appeal

[13]Mr Conder is refreshingly focused:

3.Counsel submits that the evidence before the Judge demonstrated that Mr Jones was remorseful, had taken responsibility for his actions and was taking real steps to address the causes of his offending. His insight into how he had again fallen into patterns of offending, by becoming involved with the wrong crowd, should not have been held against him.

4.On this basis, counsel submits a 10 per cent discount should have been given for these factors collectively, and that his sentence should have been reduced to one of two years and four months’ imprisonment as a result.

Discussion

[14]     I can resolve this appeal sparely.

[15]     In my view, the Judge erred in increasing the starting point by only one month to account for Mr Jones’s previous convictions.

[16]     Mr Jones, at age 33, had a significant history of dishonesty offending. That included 13 convictions for burglaries in the period 2013–2023. He served three sentences of imprisonment and one of home detention for offending which included the burglaries.

[17]     The Judge’s starting point of three years and four months’ imprisonment is not challenged. I find it to be within range.

[18]     Likewise, the discount of 25 per cent for the pleas of guilty was available to the Judge.

[19]     But, the uplift of one month for Mr Jones’s criminal record was manifestly inadequate. An uplift in the range of four to six months was required to further the purposes of accountability, deterrence and denunciation.4

[20]     If I were to accept Mr Conder’s submission that the Judge erred in not allowing a discount of three months for Mr Jones’s remorse and prospects of rehabilitation, that would not lead me to conclude that the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

[21]     However, having read Mr Jones’s letter to the Judge, I agree with his Honour that no discount should have resulted:

(a)a simple expression of remorse from a mature recidivist thief and burglar does not warrant discount; and

(b)completing a Salvation Army brief health and wellbeing programme, plus expressing an interest in further programmes, does not qualify either.

Decision

[22]The appeal is dismissed.

Brewer J

4      Sentencing Act 2002, s 7(1)(a), (e), and (f).