Luke v Police - [2025] NZHC 540

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2024-443-52 [2025] NZHC 540

BETWEEN
CHEYNE ROBERT LUKE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 11 March 2025

Appearances:

J C Hannam for Appellant P M Lange for Respondent

Judgment:

17 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] Cheyne Luke appeals his sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment in respect of the following charges, to which he pleaded guilty:1

(a)four charges of breaching home detention conditions,2

(b)one charge of breaching post-detention conditions,3

(c)two charges of shoplifting (under $500);4 and

(d)two charges of shoplifting ($500-$1000).5

1      Police v Luke [2024] NZDC 31164.
2      Sentencing Act 2002, ss 80S and 80SA; maximum penalty one year imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2000.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 80U; maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding
$1500.
4      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(c); maximum penalty one year’ imprisonment.

LUKE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 540 [17 March 2025]

[2] Mr Luke was also re-sentenced on two charges of breaching home detention as he had been called up for sentence on those charges.6

[3] Mr Luke appeals the sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive because the starting point of three months for each of the breach charges was too high, and that the overall sentence should have been adjusted for totality.

[4] The Police say the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and the appeal should be dismissed.

[5]For the reasons below, I dismiss the appeal.

The offending

[6] Mr Luke’s history of offending is relevant to his current offending and the appeal so I outline it below.

Breaching home detention conditions

[7] On 18 October 2023 Mr Luke was sentenced to 10 months’ home detention for four charges of burglary and one charge of receiving stolen property, with standard conditions.

[8] On 21 December 2023 Mr Luke breached a condition of his home detention to not consume drugs by testing positive for methamphetamine and cannabis when directed to provide a urine sample. Mr Luke breached another condition on 13 February 2024 by allowing his electronic monitoring bracelet to go flat. On both charges Mr Luke was convicted and was to come up for sentence if called upon under s 110 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

[9] Mr Luke then breached his conditions of home detention on four separate occasions in July and August 2024. These breaches included failing to report to the New Plymouth Service Centre, failing to complete an alcohol and drug test for which

6 Sentencing Act 2002, s 80S; maximum penalty one year imprisonment or a fine not exceeding
$2000.

his reason was not being able to obtain a car seat for a child he was caring for (although the drug testing site was 350 metres from his residence), and leaving his address without approval on two occasions.

Breaching post-detention conditions

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 Luke v Police

Details

AGLC: Luke v Police [2025] NZHC 540
Case: [2025] NZHC 540
Decision Date: 17 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cheyne Robert Luke appeals his sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment for multiple charges, including breaching home detention and shoplifting, arguing that the starting point of three months for each of the breach charges was too high and that the overall sentence should have been adjusted for totality. The New Zealand Police counter that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and the appeal should be dismissed. The appeal was dismissed by McQueen J.

The legal issue before the court was whether the starting point was too high, specifically whether the three months applied to each breach of home detention conditions was excessive, such that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered whether the three-month period applied to each of the breaches of home detention was excessive, resulting in a starting point that was manifestly excessive. The court found that while the starting point for the breaches was stern, the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court found that the starting point of 18 months for the six breaches was stern but appropriate given the different nature and time of the breaches. The court also found that the sentence for the shoplifting charges was within range and the sentence for the breaches of home detention stern. The court concluded that the sentence as a whole was within range, if stern. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders