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 uplift for offending while on bail and a 25 per cent reduction for guilty plea.

[8]                 Relevantly to this appeal, the Judge considered a reduction for his methamphetamine addiction but declined to apply one:

[19] As to a deduction for your methamphetamine use, given the protective nature of the order and the fact that it is a breach of an order, you knew full well what the circumstances of the order would be and the implications for breaching it would be, so I am not going to give you any credit for personal circumstances on this occasion.

[9]                 It was accepted that Mr Lennon did not have an appropriate address for electronic monitoring and no community-based sentence would be appropriate. Accordingly, he was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment.

Principles on appeal

[10]            Appeals against sentence are allowed as of right by s 244 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and must be determined in accordance with s 250. An appeal against sentence may be allowed by this Court only if it is satisfied that there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed.5 As the Court of Appeal stated in Tutakangahau v R, quoting the lower court’s decision, a “court will not intervene where the sentence is within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles”.6 It is appropriate for this Court to

5      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 250(2) and 250(3).

6      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36].

intervene and substitute its own views only if the sentence being appealed is “manifestly excessive” and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles.7

Submissions

Appellant’s submissions

[11]            Mr Lao, for Mr Lennon, submits that the Judge erred in omitting to give a discount for Mr Lennon’s methamphetamine addiction. He says Mr Lennon ought to have received a 10 per cent reduction in sentence for this factor. Mr Lao notes that the Judge acknowledged the victim applied for the protection order out of concern for Mr Lennon’s methamphetamine use. He therefore submits that there is a clear causal nexus between Mr Lennon’s addiction and the offending. He also points out that the Judge acknowledged that Mr Lennon may have gone to the victim’s place because he was coming off a high and needed a feed.8

[12]            He says that the reduction contended for, one month, would not be tinkering as it is significant in the context of Mr Lennon’s short-term sentence of imprisonment.

Respondent’s submissions

[13]            Ms Stitely, for the Crown, submits that there  is no causal nexus  between   Mr Lennon’s methamphetamine addiction and the offending for which he was being sentenced.  The pre-sentence report indicates that  the cause of the offending  was  Mr Lennon’s inability to understand the need for a protection order, rather than his addiction. It is not sufficient that the protection order itself was in place because of Mr Lennon’s behaviour while on methamphetamine, nor that the offending might have occurred while under the influence of methamphetamine.9

7      Ripia v R [2011] NZCA 101 at [15].

8 At [11].

9      Noting that engages s 9(3) of the Sentencing Act 2002, which requires the Court to disregard the fact the offender was, at the time of the offending, affected by drugs.

Analysis

[14]            It is well established that a reduction is available at sentencing for an offender’s addiction10 where there is a causative contribution to the offending such as to moderate the offender’s culpability.11

[15]            Mr Lennon clearly has a methamphetamine addiction. The pre-sentence report discloses that he has used methamphetamine on and off for 18 years. However, I am not satisfied that there is a causal contribution between that addiction and the present offending. While it is clear that the victim obtained the protection order because of his behaviour while on methamphetamine, it does not follow that the breaches of it are a result of his addiction. The pre-sentence report makes it clear the breaches are a result of Mr Lennon’s inability to understand why the victim has obtained a protection order against him. The report writer recorded that he is “upset about what he perceives is unfair treatment from [the victim]” and “he is struggling to accept her decision to ask for the order”. The report goes on to say:

Mr Lennon is conflicted and said he loves [the victim] and cannot understand why she has taken out a Protection Order naming him. He said he would not go near her again but the conflict in him was evident. He has no other support and considers he has been rejected.

Similarly, the Judge observed that the breaches stemmed from Mr Lennon’s “sense of entitlement”.

[16]            As there is a lack of clear causal nexus between the addiction and the index offending for which he was being sentenced, no reduction is available. Even if one were available, I am satisfied that any such reduction would be so modest that it would amount to tinkering.

[17]            The end sentence was within range and there is no error in the sentencing Judge’s approach.

10     Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648 at [144]–[149].

11     Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509 at [109].

Result

[18]The appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:

Public Defence Service, Christchurch Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch