Legal Research
Cases
Lacey v The King

Lacey v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 224 19 February 2025

Unconscionable Conduct

Res Judicata

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2024-485-47

[2025] NZHC 224

BETWEEN
PETER LACEY

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 11 February 2025

Counsel:

T Epati & J L Butcher for Applicant M J R Blashcke for Respondent

Judgment:

19 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[Appeal against conviction and sentence]

Introduction

[1] Peter Lacey (the appellant), was found guilty on some seven charges, following a Judge alone trial in the District Court.1 He was sentenced on 13 May 2024 to concurrent terms of eight years and three months’ imprisonment, calculated as follows:2

(a)kidnapping (eight years three months’ imprisonment);3

(b)unlawful possession of a firearm (six months’ imprisonment);4

1      Police v Waitaiki [2023] NZDC 20675.
2      R v Lacey [2024] NZDC 10759.
3      Crimes Act 1961, ss 209 and 66(2) — maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
4      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1); and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(2) — maximum penalty of 4 years’ imprisonment or a $5,000 fine.

LACEY v R [2025] NZHC 224 [19 February 2025]

(c)unlawful possession of explosives (six months’ imprisonment);5

(d)wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (eight years three months’ imprisonment);6

(e)strangulation (two years’ imprisonment);7

(f)threatening to kill (two years’ imprisonment);8 and

(g)aggravated robbery causing grievous bodily harm (eight years three months’ imprisonment).9

[2] The appellant now appeals his conviction in respect of only one of the charges, the aggravated robbery charge, on the grounds that the Judge erred in finding there was sufficient evidential basis for his secondary party liability.

[3]The appellant also appeals against his sentence on the grounds that:

(a)the starting point was too high on the incorrect assessment that Mr Lacey was the lead offender;

(b)the discrete uplift was wrongly applied to the starting point for the firearms charges;

(c)there was insufficient credit for his personal mitigating factors; and

(d)if the appeal against conviction is allowed, further reduction on sentence should be made to reflect the fact that Mr Lacey did not participate in the offence of aggravated robbery.

5      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1); and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(2) — maximum penalty of 4 years’ imprisonment or a $5,000 fine.
6      Crimes Act 1961, ss 188 and 66(2) — maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
7      Sections 189A(b) and 66(2) — maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.
8      Sections 306 and 66(2) — maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.
9      Section 235 and 66(2) — maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

The offending

[4] The appellant was charged with two co-defendants, Mr Waitaiki and Mr Houia. The events leading to the offending arose out of a dispute between the mother of Mr Waitaiki and the brother of the complainant about money allegedly owing by the complainant’s brother to Mr Waitaiki’s mother. Mr Waitaiki is the appellant’s son. Mr Waitaiki’s mother is the appellant’s former partner. The appellant, Mr Waitaiki and Mr Houia are all patched Mongrel Mob members.

[5] At approximately 10:30 pm on 29 December…

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 Lacey v The King

Details

AGLC: Lacey v The King [2025] NZHC 224
Case: [2025] NZHC 224
Decision Date: 19 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Lacey v The King concerns the appellant's appeal against both his conviction and sentence. The appellant was convicted of multiple charges, including aggravated robbery, following a trial in the District Court, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment. The appeal focuses on the sufficiency of the evidence for the aggravated robbery charge and the appropriateness of the sentence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's conviction for aggravated robbery was supported by sufficient evidence and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The court had to determine if the appellant's involvement in the crime was sufficiently established to constitute secondary party liability and whether the sentence was appropriately tailored to the severity of the offence and the appellant's role within it.

In addressing the appeal against conviction, the court found that the appellant's knowledge and actions indicated he was aware that the aggravated robbery was a probable consequence of the common purpose to seriously assault the victim. The court held that the appellant's role in detaining and assaulting the victim, along with his introduction of weapons and threats to kill, supported the conclusion that the aggravated robbery was indeed a probable consequence of the common purpose. Therefore, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Regarding the appeal against sentence, the court assessed whether the starting point and adjustments applied by the District Court were appropriate. The court found that the starting point was correctly placed within the range prescribed by relevant case law, considering the extreme violence and the appellant's role in the offence. The court also noted that the Judge had adequately considered personal mitigating factors and that there was no double counting in applying the uplift for the firearms offence. Consequently, the appeal against sentence was also dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence, thereby upholding the original conviction and sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders