Nuku v Police - [2025] NZHC 919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2025-441-3

[2025] NZHC 919

BETWEEN
STACEY VICTORIA NUKU

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 9 April 2025

Appearances:

E J Forster for Applicant M Mitchell for Respondent

Judgment:

14 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

[1] On 11 February 2025, Judge Matenga sentenced Stacey Nuku to two years and two months’ imprisonment on two sets of charges: 1

(a)first, the index offending comprising two charges of burglary,2 two charges of theft (under $500)3 and one charge of trespass;4

(b)second, charges for previous offending on which a sentence of intensive supervision had been imposed but not complied with, necessitating a cancellation of the intensive supervision sentence and a review of the charges: five charges of theft (one exceeding $1,000,5 one exceeding

1      New Zealand Police v Nuku [2025] NZDC 2509.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a); maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
4      Trespass Act 1980, ss 4(4) and 11(2)(a); maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(b); maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

NUKU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 919 [14 April 2025]

$500,6 and three under $500),7 one charge of trespass,8 one charge of failing to answer bail9 and two charges of breach of release conditions.10

Offending

Index offending

[2] On 10 March 2024, Ms Nuku stole items valued at $380.47 from a petrol station by concealing them in her clothing and leaving the store without paying for them. On 18 March 2024, she stole wine glasses valued at $180 from a store. These two offences make up the two charges of theft.

[3] On 26 April 2024, Ms Nuku went to a supermarket that she had been trespassed from on 20 July 2023 for two years. This event makes up the charge of trespassing.

[4] The two charges of burglary arise out of two incidents that took place on 13 May 2024. At 9.19am, Ms Nuku and two others went into the main lodge building of Farmhouse Lodge and took three new air conditioning units, valued at $2,500 each. They loaded them into a vehicle and drove away. Later that day Ms Nuku and one other went into the building again and took six exhaust fans, boxes of metal brackets and a large amount of leather, together valued at $4,050.00. They loaded the items into the same vehicle and then left the address. In total, Ms Nuku burgled items from Farmhouse Lodge worth $11,550.00.

Previous offending for resentencing

[5] In July 2022, Ms Nuku stole five watches valued at $2,500 and separately stole items from the Baby Factory, valued at $748, and then from Kmart, valued at $500. In November 2022, she trespassed at a supermarket, stole minor food items valued at
$11.97 and separately stole some school uniforms from the Uniform Shop. The total value of the items across all five theft…

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 Nuku 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 919
Decision Date: 14 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stacey Nuku appealed against her sentence imposed by Judge Matenga, arguing that the six-month uplift imposed for her previous offending was excessive. Nuku had been sentenced to two years and two months’ imprisonment for two charges of burglary, two charges of theft, and one charge of trespass. The sentence also incorporated uplifts for previous charges of theft and other offences, following the cancellation of a previous sentence of intensive supervision due to non-compliance. Nuku argued that the six-month uplift was excessive as it was the maximum penalty for breaching intensive supervision, and she had already served 94 days on remand, equivalent to a six-month sentence, prior to the imposition of the intensive supervision sentence. The Crown argued that the six-month uplift was appropriate to reflect the resentencing of Nuku’s previous charges and the aggravating factor of committing the index offences while subject to the intensive supervision sentence.

The High Court considered the legal approach to sentence appeals and found that the Judge did not err in imposing the six-month uplift. The uplift was intended to reflect the resentencing of Nuku’s previous charges and the fact that she offended while subject to intensive supervision. The uplift did not double-count the previous offending as it was based on the disregard for court processes demonstrated by Nuku’s actions. The six-month uplift was within range, considering the value of the property taken and the fact that fines were remitted. The uplift also incorporated a totality adjustment and did not result in a manifestly excessive sentence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment was upheld.

Orders