Legal Research
Cases
Moon v The King

Moon v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 444 7 March 2025

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2024-416-000022

[2025] NZHC 444

BETWEEN
JOHN MOON

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 12 February 2025; further submissions 7 March 2025

Counsel:

M J Lynch for Appellant

O A Jessop Boivin and M J Lillico for Respondent

Judgment:

7 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

(Appeal against Sentence)

[1] Mr Moon was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of two years1 after pleading guilty to one charge each of strangulation2 and assault on a person in a family relationship.3 He appeals the sentence solely on the basis that the MPI should not have been imposed.

The offending

[2] Mr Moon has been in an on and off relationship with the victim for over 20 years. They have three children together that are under the age of 18 and live at home.

1      R v Moon [2024] NZDC 26713 [Sentencing decision].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 189A(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, s 194A; maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.

MOON v R [2025] NZHC 444 [7 March 2025]

[3] The offending took place on 17 January 2024. At that time, the couple were living at Mr Moon’s mother’s address. The children and Mr Moon’s mother were all at home. Mr Moon became jealous after searching through the victim’s phone. He proceeded to assault her over several hours.

[4] While the victim was sitting on the bed, Mr Moon punched her in the side of the head before throwing her onto the floor by grabbing her hair. The victim landed on her stomach. Mr Moon then put his knee on the victim’s back and hit her head into the ground. He strangled the victim by putting his arm around her neck, not stopping despite her saying she was unable to breathe, and continuing until she became unconscious. When the victim awoke, she tried to stand up. Mr Moon continued to hit the victim, telling her to “snap out of it”. He threw the victim onto the couch and punched her in the back. The defendant then used a stick type object to hit the victim approximately 10 times on her back.

[5] The victim asked to leave during the assault multiple times. Mr Moon refused and prevented her from doing so, standing between her and the bedroom door. When the victim yelled for help, Mr Moon closed the windows and pushed her face into the bed so no one would hear her. He told the victim he would throw her out of the window if she wanted to leave and that if she left, he would kill her. As a result, the victim was too afraid to try to escape because she thought she would be further beaten or killed.

[6] Mr Moon’s mother called the police because of the yelling and screaming she heard. The assault ended when police arrived, although Mr Moon continued…

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 Moon v The King

Details

AGLC: Moon v The King [2025] NZHC 444
Case: [2025] NZHC 444
Decision Date: 7 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Moon v The King involves an appeal against a sentence imposed by the High Court of New Zealand. The appellant, Mr John Moon, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of two years, following his guilty pleas to charges of strangulation and assault on a person in a family relationship. Mr Moon appeals solely on the basis that the MPI should not have been imposed. The offending occurred in January 2024, where Mr Moon, over several hours, assaulted the victim, including strangulation until she lost consciousness, and striking her with a stick. This incident is one of many instances of family violence against the same victim over two decades.

The legal issues before the court were whether the imposition of an MPI constituted a material error of principle and, if not, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the principles governing the imposition of an MPI, including the need for accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community. Mr Moon's counsel argued that the one-year period before parole eligibility was sufficient for these purposes, whereas the Crown maintained that an MPI was necessary to protect the victim and deter future offending.

The court found that the offending was of moderate to high seriousness, with aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, prior family violence, and the risk of future offending. The court rejected the argument that Mr Moon's offending was not unusual, noting his extensive history of violence against the same victim. The court concluded that an MPI of two years was appropriate to protect the victim and deter future offending, despite Mr Moon's personal mitigating factors. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the appropriateness of the MPI in this case.

Orders