[1] On 9 July 2025,1 Trinity Knight was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment on two charges of burglary2 and one charge each of theft,3 being found without a reasonable excuse in a building4 and breach of prison release conditions.5

[2] Mr Knight now appeals his sentence on the basis that District Court Judge Snell gave an insufficient discount for personal mitigating factors that was not reflective of

1      Police v Knight [2025] NZDC 14748 [Decision under appeal].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a); maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
4      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 29(1)(a); maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or
$2,000 fine.
5      Parole Act 2002, s 71(1); maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment or $2,000 fine.

KNIGHT v POLICE [2025] NZHC 2999 [10 October 2025]

his rehabilitative, work and personal circumstances. He says a larger discount should be afforded.

[3] Mr Knight’s counsel, Ms Jessop, seeks leave to proceed out of time. The appeal was filed on 12 August 2025, four working days past the statutory deadline.

The offending

[4] Between 22 and 25 September 2024, the victim of the burglaries was moving from an address in Picton (Address A). In the early hours of 23 September, the appellant went to Address A and searched the property using a torch. He forced entry to the locked garage inside the section and, without claim of right, uplifted two chainsaws owned by the victim.

[5] On the evening of 24 September and the early hours of the 25th, the appellant returned to Address A. He removed a large amount of property, including a lawnmower and weed eater from the garage. In the process, he tried to open the garage to remove large items and bent the garage door. He then went through an attached room to a sleepout and removed a large number of items that were transferred into a blue wheelie bin.

[6] The appellant hid most of the property inside the garage of another address one block away from Address A, aside from two items, which he attempted to conceal with a mat outside the garage. Given the quantity of items taken, the appellant must have taken several trips between the addresses.

[7] Between 12.30 and 6.30 am on 9 October 2024, the appellant went to his mother’s address to uplift some of his own belongings. However, he also took, without claim of right, items belonging to her with a combined value of $400, namely bedding, a Bluetooth speaker and toiletries.

[8] At about 4.00 pm on 9 October 2024, the appellant went inside a…

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 Knight v Police

Details

AGLC: Knight v Police [2025] NZHC 2999
Case: [2025] NZHC 2999
Decision Date: 10 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Blenheim Registry, Trinity David Knight appeals his sentence for multiple charges of burglary, theft, unlawful entry, and breach of prison release conditions. The appellant argues that the District Court judge, Judge Snell, did not sufficiently account for personal mitigating factors, including his rehabilitative, work, and personal circumstances, in imposing a sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment. The appeal was filed out of time, but leave to appeal was granted. The primary issue is whether the five per cent discount applied by Judge Snell for personal mitigating factors was inadequate, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence.

The court found that while the appellant's extensive criminal history and recidivism warranted a significant discount for denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community, the five per cent discount for personal mitigating factors was within the range that could be justified by accepted sentencing principles. The court noted that the appellant's history of reoffending shortly after being released from prison diminished the weight that should be given to his personal mitigating factors. The overall sentence, considering the starting point of 30 months and the 25 per cent discount for guilty pleas, was not manifestly excessive. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders