Newport v Police - [2025] NZHC 647

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2025-443-3

[2025] NZHC 647

BETWEEN
NATHAN NEWPORT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 19 March 2025

Appearances:

M J Utting for Appellant H Bullock for Respondent

Judgment:

26 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF BOLDT J

[1] On 27 November 2024, Judge Hikaka sentenced the appellant, Nathan Newport, to two and a half years’ imprisonment.1 Mr Newport had pleaded guilty to charges of burglary,2 theft,3 receiving4 and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle.5 He appeals against his sentence.

Background

[2] Mr Newport is 38. He is a recidivist burglar and property offender. Prior to his most recent course of offending, Mr Newport had 15 convictions for burglary and more than 60 convictions in total. He has numerous convictions for theft, theft from

1      Police v Newport [2024] NZDC 28646 [Decision under appeal].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a). Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 219 and 223(c). Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.
4      Sections 246 and 247(c). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
5      Section 226(1). Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

NEWPORT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 647 [26 March 2025]

vehicles, unlawfully taking motor vehicles, wilful damage, receiving and fraud. He has served four sentences of imprisonment and, with only occasional pauses, has offended steadily for the last 23 years.

[3] The most recent raft of offending occurred in May and August 2024. It was a continuation of the old pattern. Mr Newport faced seven charges, including two of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, two of theft from cars and one each of receiving, theft and burglary. Plainly the burglary charge was the most serious, though as residential burglaries go it was not in the worst category. Mr Newport drove to the victims’ home, bringing a small stool with him. He entered their yard, stood on the stool and stole three external security cameras, valued at just under $1000 in total. He did not break into the house.

[4] Mr Newport was arrested in August 2024, and has been in custody since. He pleaded guilty to all seven charges on 16 October 2024. Mr Newport attended a restorative justice meeting the following month and was very apologetic. He told the victims he had been living out of his car and was addicted to methamphetamine. He said, “that’s not an excuse but I was stealing to live”.

District Court sentencing

[5] Judge Hikaka adopted a starting point of three and a half years’ imprisonment.6 He assessed the appropriate starting point for the burglary at two years, added six months for each of the occasions on which Mr Newport unlawfully took a vehicle, and added a further six months for the rest of the offending. From that, the Judge deducted 25 per cent for Mr Newport’s guilty pleas and a further 15 per cent to reflect his background, addiction and the genuine remorse he demonstrated when he participated in the restorative justice meeting.7

[6]…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Newport v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 647
Decision Date: 26 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nathan Newport appeals against a sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment, imposed by Judge Hikaka following his guilty plea to charges of burglary, theft, receiving and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle. The appeal challenges the sentence's proportionality and appropriateness, focusing on the starting point for the burglary charge and the final uplift. Newport, a recidivist burglar with a long history of offending, brought a stool to the victims' property to remove external security cameras, committing a residential burglary without entering the house. The Crown accepted the starting point for the burglary was overestimated, and the appropriate starting point should be no higher than 18 months. However, they argued that the five-month uplift was appropriate given Newport’s extensive criminal history. Newport's counsel agreed with the Crown on the appropriate starting point but argued for a greater uplift to reflect his criminal history. The court found no material error in the sentence, noting that the overall sentence was within the appropriate range for Newport’s offending, despite the overestimation of the burglary's seriousness. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

Orders