McKay v The King - [2025] NZHC 3137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2025-442-019

[2025] NZHC 3137

BETWEEN
SEAN McKAY

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 16 October 2025

Appearances:

L A Caris for Appellant

A R Goodison for Respondent

Judgment:

21 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Appeal against sentence)

Introduction

[1] Sean McKay pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary.1 On 22 July 2025, he was sentenced in the District Court at Nelson to two years and three months’ imprisonment, and a $2,500 emotional harm reparation payment.2 The sentence also included remission of $10,534 in fines.

[2]Mr McKay now appeals against his sentence on the grounds that:

(a)the starting point was too high;

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 231 — maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
2 R v McKay [2025] NZDC 16595.

McKAY v R [2025] NZHC 3137 [21 October 2025]

(b)the Judge applied an inadequate discount for personal mitigating factors;

(c)the Judge erred in make an order for an emotional harm reparation payment of $2,500; and

(d)the remission of fines and imposition of an additional two months’ imprisonment was not appropriate in the circumstances.

The offending

[3] On 7 May 2024 at 3.28 am, Mr McKay left his address and drove a vehicle to Tasman Bay Jewellers in Motueka. He approached the rear door of the jewellers, wearing gloves and a black paintball mask to disguise his identity.

[4] Mr McKay used a sledgehammer to break the safety glass out of the rear door, and then broke the metal security lattice from inside of the door. He proceeded to squeeze his body through the gap in the broken door and entered the premises. Once inside, he pulled a locked cabinet off the wall. One of the glass doors on the cabinet broke and a number of gold chains fell onto the floor. Mr McKay then proceeded to smash the top of another cabinet and remove two display trays containing gold wedding bands and other decorative jewellery.

[5] While Mr McKay was attempting to leave the premises through the gap in the broken door, he dropped a number of gold wedding bands on the ground. He also left his right shoe, the black mask and the sledgehammer. Mr McKay’s DNA was identified on the mask.

[6] The police tracked Mr McKay via his home detention bracelet and discovered that he had placed layers of foil over the bracelet in an attempt to disrupt the GPS signal. Mr McKay had with him a personal bag containing a wig and gold jewellery, including rings identified as coming from the jewellery store. His bag also contained a notebook with his name on it, which included a list related to the burglary.

[7] Mr McKay initially denied the offending and explained that the person responsible for the burglary must have put the jewellery in his bag when the police stopped him.

Pre-sentence reports

Provision of Advice to Courts report

[8] Mr McKay has a significant and continuous…

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 McKay v The King

Details

AGLC: McKay v The King [2025] NZHC 3137
Case: [2025] NZHC 3137
Decision Date: 21 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in McKay v The King concerns the sentence imposed on Sean McKay for a charge of burglary. McKay had broken into a jewellery store and stolen valuable items, and was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment, a $2,500 emotional harm reparation payment, and remission of $10,534 in fines. McKay appealed the sentence on several grounds, including that the starting point was too high, the Judge applied an inadequate discount for personal mitigating factors, the emotional harm reparation payment was excessive, and the remission of fines and imposition of additional imprisonment was not appropriate. The court found that the starting point of two years and three months was appropriately pitched in relation to similar cases, and that the overall discount of 30 per cent for personal mitigating factors was within range. However, the court found that the order for a $2,500 reparation payment was excessive, and quashed the order. The court also found that the remission of fines was not appropriate as it did not follow the process prescribed in the Summary Proceedings Act, and therefore quashed the remission and reinstated the fines. The court set aside the original sentence and imposed a sentence of two years and one month’s imprisonment.

Orders