Mackie v Police - [2025] NZHC 514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2025-483-1

CRI-2025-483-2 [2025] NZHC 514

BETWEEN
STEVEN MACKIE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 13 March 2025

Appearances:

M McGhie for Appellant

A N Kearney for Respondent

Judgment:

14 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] Mr Mackie was sentenced in relation to three charges on 16 December 2024 by Judge Marinovich at the Whanganui District Court, following the entry of guilty pleas.1

[2] The charges were assault on a person in a family relationship,2 breach of a protection order,3 and burglary.4 Mr Mackie was sentenced to a period of 20 and a half months’ imprisonment.

[3] He now appeals against the sentence on the grounds that the starting point for the burglary was too high, a full discount of 25 per cent for the guilty pleas should

1      Police v Mackie [2024] NZDC 30987.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 194A; maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
3      Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(b) and 112(1)(a); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

MACKIE v NZ POLICE [2025] NZHC 514 [14 March 2025]

have been given and that the Provision of Advice to Courts (PAC) report prepared for sentencing should not have been relied upon by the Judge.

[4] The Police oppose the appeal, submitting that the starting point for the burglary charge was within range and the end sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Police further say that the Judge was entitled to rely on the PAC report.

[5]For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.

The offending

Assault on person in a family relationship

[6] At approximately 9.15 pm on 21 May 2024, Mr Mackie was at an address in Whanganui. He was asleep in bed while the complainant sat beside him watching television. Mr Mackie woke up and asked the complainant for a cigarette.

[7] A verbal argument ensued about previous things that had been building up. The complainant told Mr Mackie that one of them would have to leave and the arguing had to end before one of them gets hurt. Mr Mackie became angry and aggressive.

[8] As Mr Mackie straddled the complainant, he struck her to the left side of her face with his right hand. The complainant got her mobile phone and ran outside and across the street to phone the Police for help. Mr Mackie followed the complainant across the road and began to push her back towards their house.

[9] It appears from the charging documents that Mr Mackie was on bail awaiting sentence for this offending when the following offending occurred.

Breach of protection order

[10] A final protection order was issued in the Whanganui District Court on 30 July 2024, with Mr Mackie as the respondent and the protected person being the complainant.

[11] On 18 October 2024 at 7.45 am Mr Mackie arrived at the complainant’s address. Mr Mackie was banging…

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 Mackie v Police

Details

AGLC: Mackie v Police [2025] NZHC 514
Case: [2025] NZHC 514
Decision Date: 14 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steven Mackie appealed his sentence on the grounds that the starting point for the burglary charge was too high, a full discount of 25 per cent for the guilty pleas should have been given, and the Provision of Advice to Courts (PAC) report should not have been relied upon by the sentencing Judge. The Police opposed the appeal, asserting that the starting point for the burglary charge was within range and that the Judge was entitled to rely on the PAC report. The High Court was required to determine whether the sentencing Judge erred in his assessment of the starting point for the burglary, the discount for guilty pleas, and the reliance on the PAC report.

The High Court found that the Judge could properly rely on the PAC report as there was no record by Corrections that the report in respect of Mr Mackie should be recalled. The Court further found that the starting point of 18 months' imprisonment for the burglary was open to the Judge, considering the nature of the premises entered and the victim impact. The Court concluded that the Judge's assessment of Mr Mackie's culpability for the burglary was appropriate, and there was no basis to find Mr Mackie has lesser culpability for the offending. Regarding the discount for guilty pleas, the Court found that the Judge's approach in applying a 20 per cent credit was correct, and the discrepancy between the 20 per cent and the 25 per cent credit did not result in a materially excessive sentence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of 20 and a half months' imprisonment was upheld. The Court found that the Judge's assessment of the starting point for the burglary, the discount for guilty pleas, and the reliance on the PAC report were all within the range of acceptable sentencing principles.

Orders