Legal Research
Cases
Perez v Police

Perez v Police

Case [2025] NZHC 2273 12 August 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-148

[2025] NZHC 2273

BETWEEN
CRISTOPHER PEREZ

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 7 August 2025

Appearances:

H R Skelton for Appellant G L Collett for Respondent

Judgment:

12 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 August 2025 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

PEREZ v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2273 [12 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Cristopher Perez, pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, several dishonesty offences: one of burglary,1 one charge of attempted burglary,2 one of theft (under $500)3 and two representative charges of dishonestly using a document.4 On 23 May 2025, he was sentenced by Judge Couch to 27 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay reparation of $12,314.5

[2] Mr Perez appeals that sentence on the grounds the Judge erred in not applying deductions for the appellant’s gambling addiction and the increased impact of imprisonment as a foreign national, and by ordering reparation of $12,314.

Facts

[3] The first representative charge of dishonestly using a document arose from events on 12 December 2024. In the afternoon, keys and a wallet were stolen from a vehicle parked at a mall. Within a few minutes of the theft, Mr Perez was using the credit card from the stolen wallet. He made seven purchases of goods totalling $702.

[4] The burglary charge arises from events overnight between 14 and 15 December, where Mr Perez went to a Christchurch residential property, climbed over a fence into another residential property, and went into the garage where he stole keys to the garage and numerous other items valued at more than $12,000, including an offroad bicycle and an electric scooter.

[5] The second charge of dishonestly using a document arises from the morning of 16 December, where a cell phone and wallet were stolen from a vehicle parked on a suburban street. An hour later, Mr Perez was using the bank card from the wallet to purchase goods valued at $100, and subsequently made two further purchases of petrol each of $100.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 231(1)(a) and 72; maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
4      Section 228(1)(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
5      Police v Perez [2025] NZDC 11811.

[6]That same day, he stole $50 worth of petrol, giving rise to the theft charge.

[7] The attempted burglary charge arises out of events which occurred in the early hours of the morning of 21 December. Mr Perez went back to the property where he had previously stolen property and keys from the garage. While in the backyard, he was confronted by the occupants who held him there until police arrived. He had the keys to the garage with him.

District Court decision

[8] The Judge adopted a…

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 Perez v Police

Details

AGLC: Perez v Police [2025] NZHC 2273
Case: [2025] NZHC 2273
Decision Date: 12 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cristopher Perez appeals his sentence for burglary, attempted burglary, theft, and dishonest use of a document. Perez was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment and ordered to pay $12,314 in reparations. Perez argues the sentence is excessive, claiming the Judge should have considered deductions for his gambling addiction and the impact of imprisonment as a foreign national.

The Court considered the starting points for each offence, noting the burglary was of a garage at night with high-value items stolen, and the attempted burglary involved a confrontation with the victim. The Court found the starting points were within the available range. The Court then considered whether the Judge erred in not applying deductions for Perez's personal background factors and the increased impact of imprisonment as a foreign national. The Court found there was insufficient evidence of a causal connection between Perez's gambling addiction and his offending. Further, Perez had lived in New Zealand for nearly 20 years, speaks English well, and has the support of his mother. The Court concluded the Judge did not err in not applying these deductions.

The Court then considered the reparation order. The Court found it was not reasonable to expect Perez to pay the full reparation order of $12,314 within a reasonable time. Perez is unemployed and has difficulty obtaining employment. The Court ordered Perez to pay $7,800 in reparations, which is the total of $30 paid weekly over five years.

The appeal is allowed in part. The order for reparations is reduced from $12,314 to $7,800. In all other respects the sentence is confirmed.

Orders