Lawrence v The King - [2025] NZHC 2223

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2025-441-8

[2025] NZHC 2223

BETWEEN
JETT LAWRENCE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 31 July 2024

Appearances:

W R Hawkins for the Appellant S Manning for the Respondent

Judgment:

7 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J

Introduction

[1] On 23 May 2025, the appellant was sentenced by Judge R J Collins in the Napier District Court to a term of two years and seven months' imprisonment and was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for six months1 on charges of burglary,2 conversion of a vehicle,3 demanding with menaces,4 theft,5 intentional damage,6 assault with intent to injure7 and driving while suspended.8

1      R v Lawrence [2025] NZDC 11730.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 231(a) and 66(1) - maximum penalty 10 years' imprisonment.
3      Sections 226(1) and 66(1) - maximum penalty seven years' imprisonment.
4      Sections 239(2) and 66(1) - maximum penalty seven years' imprisonment.
5      Sections 219(1)(a) and 223(3) - maximum penalty one year' imprisonment.
6      Sections 269(2)(a) and 66(1) - maximum penalty seven years' imprisonment.
7      Section 193 - maximum penalty three years' imprisonment.
8      Land Transport Act 1961, ss 32(1)(c) and (3) - maximum penalty three months' imprisonment.

LAWRENCE v R [2025] NZHC 2223 [7 August 2025]

[2] The appellant submits the adjusted starting point adopted by the Judge and the deduction allowed for personal mitigating factors are such that I can conclude the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

[3] The respondent opposes the appeal and submits the sentence imposed was well within the available range in terms of the adjusted starting point adopted and the mitigating factors applicable to this appellant. The respondent submits the end sentence was not manifestly excessive.

[4] I have decided to dismiss the appeal. This judgment sets out my reasons for doing so.

The facts

[5] There are three sets of charges that reflect offending between 2 February 2024 and 4 October 2024. The first two sets of charges (referred to as the Crown Charge Notice charges) were faced by the appellant and a co-defendant. The third set of charges (referred to as the Police charges) were faced by the appellant alone. The appellant was 19 years of age at the time of the offending.

Crown Charge Notice charges

Te Mata Peak offending - 2 February 2024

[6] On 2 February 2024, the appellant and a co-defendant were in a motor vehicle in a carpark at the top of Te Mata Peak. A man seated in the driver's seat of his vehicle (the victim) was also there, reading from his Kindle device, looking at his cell phone and, from time to time, looking out over the view of Hastings.

[7] The appellant and the co-defendant stopped behind the vehicle occupied by the victim. The victim was not known to either of them. The co-defendant, who was the driver of the vehicle, blocked the victim's vehicle so he could not leave.

[8] The appellant got…

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 Lawrence v The King

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v The King [2025] NZHC 2223
Case: [2025] NZHC 2223
Decision Date: 7 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lawrence v The King, the High Court reviewed the sentence imposed on the appellant, Jett Lawrence, by the Napier District Court. The appellant was sentenced to two years and seven months' imprisonment and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for six months on multiple charges, including burglary, conversion of a vehicle, demanding with menaces, theft, intentional damage, assault with intent to injure, and driving while suspended. The appellant appealed against the sentence, arguing that the starting point and the personal mitigating factors considered by the Judge were inappropriate.

The legal issues before the court were whether the starting point for the assault with intent to injure was correctly determined and whether the Judge appropriately applied personal mitigating factors. The court assessed the starting point for the Facebook Marketplace offending and the adjustments for personal factors, including the appellant's youth and family support. The court found that the appellant's offending was more serious than cases cited by the appellant, and the starting point was appropriately set in band two of Nuku v R. Additionally, the court concluded that the 15 per cent allowance for personal mitigating factors, apart from the guilty plea, was sufficient.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature of the offending and the principles of sentencing. The court emphasised the need to hold the offender accountable, promote a sense of responsibility, and protect the community, while also considering the appellant's rehabilitative prospects and family support. The interests of the victim and the gravity of the offending outweighed the personal mitigating factors presented.

Orders