Lennon v Police - [2025] NZHC 1546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-111

[2025] NZHC 1546

BETWEEN
JORDYN TAMATEA LENNON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 12 June 2025

Appearances:

J Lao and M Faletanoai-Evalu for Appellant K N Stitely for Respondent

Judgment:

13 June 2025

Reissued:

14 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 June 2025 at 9.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

LENNON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1546 [13 June 2025]

Introduction

[1] On 15 April 2025, Mr Lennon was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment1 on charges of theft,2 two breaches of a protection order,3 and possession of a methamphetamine pipe.4 He appeals his sentence solely on the basis that he was not given a discount for his methamphetamine addiction, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. No issue is taken with the other aspects of the sentence.

Facts

[2]On 22 February 2025, Mr Lennon entered Liberty Food Market and concealed

$30.79 of food items in his pants before leaving the store without paying.

[3] Mr Lennon was made the respondent of a protection order in favour of a close family member on 19 July 2024. On 24 February 2025, Mr Lennon walked inside the sliding door of her address and began making himself breakfast when she found him in her kitchen. She asked him to leave multiple times however he refused. She eventually drove him home an hour later.

[4] On 3 March 2025, while on bail, Mr Lennon again walked inside her house uninvited and refused to leave the property when asked. The protected person feared for her safety and drove him to another address in order to get him to leave. When Mr Lennon was arrested on 4 March, he was in possession of a methamphetamine pipe.

Victim Impact Statement

[5] The victim provided two victim impact statements. She says she loves her Mr Lennon but he needs help and she is frightened of him. She suffers PTSD, fear, anxiety stress, low mood and nightmares as a result of Mr Lennon’s offending and behaviour while he is using methamphetamine.

1      Police v Lennon [2025] NZDC 8932.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d) — maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
3      Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(a), 9 and 112(1)(a) — maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 13(1)(a) and (3) — maximum penalty one year imprisonment.

District Court Decision

[6] Judge Crosbie noted the pre-sentence report which recorded that Mr Lennon was regretful of his actions but also upset and confused at what he perceived as unfair treatment from the victim.

[7] The Judge adopted a starting point of eleven months, comprised of three months for the first breach of protection order, six months for the second breach, one month for the theft, and one month for the possession of a pipe. The Judge applied a one-month…

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 Lennon v Police

Details

AGLC: Lennon v Police [2025] NZHC 1546
Case: [2025] NZHC 1546
Decision Date: 13 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court was presented with an appeal by Jordyn Tamatea Lennon against his sentence, which was imposed by the District Court. Lennon was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment for charges including theft, breaches of a protection order, and possession of a methamphetamine pipe. Lennon's appeal focused on the absence of a discount in his sentence for his methamphetamine addiction, which he argued led to an excessive sentence.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the District Court erred in not applying a discount for Lennon's methamphetamine addiction. Lennon's counsel argued that the addiction contributed to his offending behaviour, warranting a 10% reduction in sentence. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that there was no causal nexus between the addiction and the offending, as the breaches of the protection order were due to Lennon's misunderstanding of the order rather than his addiction.

The High Court found that while Lennon's methamphetamine addiction was acknowledged, there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal contribution to the offending behaviour. The pre-sentence report highlighted that the breaches of the protection order were due to Lennon's perceived unfair treatment by the victim and his inability to accept the order, rather than his addiction. The Court concluded that any reduction for addiction would be minimal and would amount to tinkering with the sentence. Therefore, the Court held that the sentence was within the appropriate range and there was no error in the District Court's approach.

The Court dismissed Lennon's appeal, affirming the nine-month imprisonment sentence. The judgment emphasised that the sentence was justified by accepted sentencing principles, and there was no basis to substitute the Court's view for that of the District Court.

Orders