Judkins v Police - [2025] NZHC 2900

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CRI-2025-476-15

[2025] NZHC 2900

MEGAN FRANCES JUDKINS

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing (via VMR): 2 October 2025

Counsel:

J B Lovely for Appellant

A M McRae for Respondent

Judgment:

2 October 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

[Sentence appeal]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Ms Megan Judkins, appeals a sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Savage on 24 June 2025 in the Timaru District Court following her conviction on charges of:1

(a)first, injuring with intent to injure;2

(b)second, resisting Police;3

1      Police v Judkins [2025] NZDC 15031.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2)—maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment.
3      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a)—maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.

JUDKINS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2900 [2 October 2025]

(c)third, driving contrary to an alcohol interlock licence;4 and

(d)fourth, driving with excess breath alcohol (third or subsequent).5

[2] Ms Judkins appeared for a Judge-alone trial before Judge Savage on 14 February 2025. At the commencement of the trial, Ms Judkins pleaded guilty to the driving charges. She was then found guilty of the injuring with intent to injure and resisting Police charges.6

Facts

[3] Turning to the brief factual background in this matter, Ms Judkins and the victim are married. On 21 May 2024, the victim telephoned Ms Judkins to enquire as to her whereabouts. In the course of that telephone conversation, it became apparent to the victim that Ms Judkins had been drinking.7 At 4 pm, shortly after the telephone call, Ms Judkins drove and arrived at the family home in Timaru. Her car did not have an alcohol interlock device fitted, despite Ms Judkins being subject to an alcohol interlock device condition.

[4] I adopt the summary of the facts as found by the Judge in relation to the injuring with intent to injure offending that occurred on Ms Judkins arriving back at her address:8
[10]A fearful argument developed between these two women and in the course of that argument, [Ms Judkins] upended a kitchen table, smashed a chair and kicked over a pot plant. I say with a degree of certainty that it was a fearful argument as a portion of it was captured in the 111 call the complainant felt compelled to make. It is clear [Ms Judkins] was in a highly agitated state and was acting belligerently and threateningly. It was not pretty to listen to.

[11]The complainant’s evidence was [Ms Judkins] pushed and slapped her around, punched her repeatedly, threw her against the kitchen bench and headbutted her. The injuries suffered … include a swelling to her head, a broken nose and a fat lip as well as various other abrasions.

4 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 31(1)(b) and 32(3)—maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $1,000 and a mandatory six-month disqualification period.
5 Land Transport Act, s 56(1) and (4)—maximum penalty: two…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Judkins v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2900
Decision Date: 2 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in this case concerns a sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Savage in the Timaru District Court on Ms Megan Judkins, who was convicted on charges of injuring with intent to injure, resisting Police, driving contrary to an alcohol interlock licence, and driving with excess breath alcohol. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the District Court Judge erred in applying cumulative sentences instead of concurrent sentences for the charges and whether the starting point of two years’ imprisonment for the injuring with intent to injure charge was manifestly excessive. The appellant, Ms Judkins, argued that her offences, though different in kind, formed a connected series of events that should have warranted concurrent sentencing. The respondent, New Zealand Police, opposed the appeal, asserting that the Judge's sentence was appropriate and within the acceptable sentencing range.

The High Court found that the offending in question was different in kind, as the violent assault and the drink driving were distinct forms of wrongdoing. The court agreed with the District Court Judge that cumulative sentences were appropriate for the drink driving charges, given their separate nature. The court also rejected the argument that the starting point of two years’ imprisonment for the injuring with intent to injure charge was manifestly excessive, finding that the sentence was within the appropriate range considering the aggravating factors present in the case. The court concluded that no error had occurred in the District Court Judge’s sentence and dismissed the appeal.

This decision reinforces the principles governing the application of cumulative and concurrent sentences, emphasizing that the nature of the offences and the factual circumstances must guide the sentencing approach. The court’s analysis highlights the importance of considering the overall culpability and the specific context of the offending when determining an appropriate starting point.

Orders