Morgan v Police - [2025] NZHC 1552

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000747 CRI-2024-404-000748 [2025] NZHC 1552

BETWEEN SIMON MORGAN

Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 5 May 2025

Counsel: M Choi and C H B Megala for Appellant
W N Fotherby and G R T Lund for Respondent

Judgment: 13 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 June 2025 at 10.30 am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service (Auckland) for Appellant Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

MORGAN v POLICE [2025] NZHC 1552 [13 June 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Morgan appeals his sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge D A Bell on 26 July 2024.1

[2] Mr Morgan needs leave to appeal because he is out of time. I granted leave to appeal at the hearing because Mr Morgan was self-represented at sentencing and had difficulties getting legal advice while in prison.

[3] Mr Morgan is 42 years old. He has a prolific history of offending and has spent most of his adult life serving serial sentences of imprisonment because, as soon as he is released, he re-offends. His offending is a mixture of violent offending and property offending.

[4] This case begins with Mr Morgan pleading guilty to a raft of charges, including assaulting his partner. Judge Lummis, who had dealt with Mr Morgan in the past, stepped back from a sentence of imprisonment and imposed a sentence of intensive supervision and community work.2 In my view, that was a manifestly inadequate sentence. However, Mr Morgan did not take advantage of it. He never engaged with intensive supervision and he never performed any community work. He did, however, commit a further raft of offences, including assaulting the same ex-partner again, although less seriously than before.

[5] Judge Bell had to re-sentence Mr Morgan on the charges which had been dealt with by Judge Lummis and sentence him on the new charges. The end point adopted by the Judge was two years and three months’ imprisonment.

[6] Mr Morgan has applied for leave to adduce further evidence on the appeal, being evidence of his alcohol addiction and struggles with mental health. The Crown accepts that this is cogent evidence and was not readily available previously to Mr Morgan given that he was representing himself. I give leave.

1 Police v Morgan [2024] NZDC 17829.
2 Police v Morgan [2024] NZDC 5312.

The Judges’ decisions

Judge Lummis

[7]The Judge described Mr Morgan’s offending:

[1] I am going to run through things in a little bit of detail because I want to keep a track on you. This is not going to be the last time we meet. Today we are sentencing you on eight charges. There is theft from the Countdown Pukekohe of $471, theft from the Warehouse St Lukes, $374. That was on 28 January and 7 February of this year. Then on 16 February of this year the main charge…

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 Morgan v Police

Details

AGLC: Morgan v Police [2025] NZHC 1552
Case: [2025] NZHC 1552
Decision Date: 13 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simon Morgan appeals against his two-year and three-month sentence imposed by Judge D A Bell, arguing that the sentence is manifestly excessive. The appellant contends that the sentence did not adequately consider his personal mitigating factors, specifically his addiction and mental health issues, which contributed to his offending. The Crown accepts that the evidence of addiction and mental health is cogent, but argues that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The court must decide whether the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive, considering both the offending and the appellant's personal circumstances.

Judge Bell's sentence was based on a starting point of 30 months, which the court found to be light. The court considered the uplift for the other offending, the appellant's criminal history, and the discounts for the guilty plea and rehabilitation efforts. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, noting that the appellant had not engaged in any rehabilitation efforts and had reoffended shortly after his previous sentencing. The Crown's argument that the sentence was generous and took into account the appellant's struggles was accepted by the court. The court found that while the appellant's addiction and mental health issues were significant, they did not warrant an additional discount beyond the 5% already applied. The discount for the guilty plea was also appropriately applied.

The appeal is dismissed, and the original sentence stands.

Orders