Kronfeld v The King - [2025] NZCA 435

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA235/2025

[2025] NZCA 435

BETWEEN ROSABEL DANIELLA CATHERINE
KRONFELD
Appellant
AND THE KING
Respondent

Hearing:	31 July 2025
Court:	French P, Jagose and Gault JJ
Counsel:	G H Vear and J F McPherson for Appellant
T Zhang and R K Thomson for Respondent
Introduction

The appellant Ms Kronfeld pleaded guilty in the District Court to one charge

of aggravated burglary.[1] She was convicted and sentenced by Judge Webby to a prison

[1] Crimes Act 1961, s 232(1)(a).

term of five years and six months.[2]

[2] R v Kronfeld [2025] NZDC 6523 [sentencing notes] at [15].

Ms Kronfeld now appeals the sentence.[3]
[3] Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 244(1) and 247(1)(d).

Facts of the offending

Shortly after 2.15 am on 19 August 2023, Ms Kronfeld and four other women

arrived uninvited at the victim’s home and began screaming and yelling abuse. The

group was angry with the victim for having disclosed on social media that one of the

group, a Ms Kamoe, had been unfaithful to her partner. The identities of the other

three women were never established, only that they were known as “Jayda”, “Twista

Queen” and “Des Joyce”.

The victim was alone in the house and asleep. She was woken by the noise,

including the noise of Ms Kamoe smashing a bottle outside near the back door. As the

victim went to the back door, Ms Kronfeld kicked down the front door and entered the

house. She approached the victim and repeatedly attempted to punch her in the face

before letting the others in.

Once inside, the group embarked on a prolonged and terrifying attack on the

victim, during the course of which the victim believed she was going to die. It lasted

some 10 to 15 minutes.

It began with Twista Queen wrapping an extension cord around the victim’s

neck and then proceeding to drag her around the house, impeding her breathing. As

this was happening, Ms Kronfeld and the others continued to hit and taunt the victim.

[7] At some stage during the attack, Ms Kamoe signalled for the group to stop, saying “this is my kill, this is my shit”. She then grabbed the victim by the hair, “ragdoll[ing]” her around the house. The victim begged her to stop, but to no avail.

The others, including Ms Kronfeld, resumed their attack. One of them tried to cut the

victim’s hair with scissors, while another started to record the assault on her phone.

At another point, Ms Kronfeld left the group. She went first to the victim’s

bedroom. There, she attempted to remove footage from the victim’s security camera,

damaging $3000 worth of electronic equipment in the process. From the bedroom,

she moved to the kitchen, and picked up a serrated bread knife. She handed the knife

to one of the group who proceeded to strike the victim with it, while Ms Kronfeld held

the victim by her hair. The victim sustained 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 Kronfeld v The King

Details

AGLC: Kronfeld v The King [2025] NZCA 435
Case: [2025] NZCA 435
Decision Date: 29 August 2025 at 2.15 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rosabel Daniella Catherine Kronfeld appealed against her sentence for aggravated burglary. Kronfeld and four other women had invaded a victim's home and assaulted her. Kronfeld kicked down the front door, entered the house, and attempted to punch the victim. Kronfeld also damaged the victim's electronic equipment and handed a knife to another offender who used it to stab the victim. Kronfeld pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years and six months in prison by the District Court. Kronfeld appealed on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Crown accepted that Kronfeld's background factors warranted some discount, but argued that the sentence was otherwise appropriate. The Court of Appeal agreed that the starting point of eight years was appropriate but found that greater credit should have been given for background factors. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to five years in prison.

Orders