Pound v Police - [2025] NZHC 2040

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-116 [2025] NZHC 2040

BETWEEN ASHLEY GRACE POUND

Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 17 July 2025 further memorandum 18 July 2025 Appearances: R I J Crean for Appellant
L Fiennes for Respondent

Judgment: 25 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(appeal against sentence)

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

POUND v POLICE [2025] NZHC 2040 [25 July 2025]

[1] On 21 May 2025, Judge Couch sentenced Ashley Pound to two years and four months’ imprisonment1 following her guilty pleas to charges of burglary,2 theft (over $1000),3 driving while disqualified (third or subsequent),4 and being found unlawfully in an enclosed yard.5 Ms Pound appeals that sentence. She says it is manifestly excessive.

Facts

[2] On 24 September 2024 at 3.24 am, the appellant and a co-offender entered a laundromat. They spent several minutes opening the filter trays of each machine, using a torch to look inside for items. The appellant retrieved two cardboard boxes and filled them with the victim’s clothes from inside a dryer. The appellant and her co-offender then left with the two boxes containing $2,620 worth of the victim’s clothing.

[3] On 25 September the appellant was stopped by Police for failing to wear her seatbelt while driving. She was a disqualified driver with nine prior convictions for driving while disqualified.

[4] During daylight hours on 7 October the appellant jemmied the side window of a home on Grahams Road. She then searched the house stealing $5,925.40 of property including a military uniform, foreign currency and the victim’s wallet and passport.

[5] On 23 October at around 5.35 am the appellant, along with the same co-offender from the laundromat theft, attempted to open the rear door of a house on Chester Street. They were found by police. The appellant had a small torch, the co-offender was wearing gloves and had two jemmy bars.

1      Police v Pound [2025] NZDC 10677.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 219 and 223(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a) and (4); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or $6000 fine.
5      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 29(1)(b); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.

District Court Decision

[6] The Judge adopted a discrete starting point for each offence. Sixteen months’ imprisonment was adopted for the burglary described by the Judge as substantial, involving a forced entry and a real risk of encountering the occupants. A starting point of six months was applied for the laundromat theft which the Judge described as mean spirited and clearly premeditated: “You went there to steal other people’s clothes”. The Judge observed that the driving while disqualified was Ms Pound’s 10th driver licencing offence (either driving while disqualified or driving while suspended), and her fourth in three years. A starting point of…

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 Pound v Police

Details

AGLC: Pound v Police [2025] NZHC 2040
Case: [2025] NZHC 2040
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ashley Pound appeals against the sentence imposed on her by the District Court following her convictions for burglary, theft, driving while disqualified, and being unlawfully in an enclosed yard. The High Court is required to determine whether the sentence is manifestly excessive. The appellant submits that the sentence is manifestly excessive for several reasons, including the starting point adopted by the Judge for each offence, the totality deduction, and the deductions for background factors. The respondent accepts that there were errors but submits that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive. The High Court agrees with the appellant that there was an arithmetical error and that the starting point for the burglary should have been higher. However, the Court is not satisfied that the other errors identified have given rise to a manifestly excessive end sentence. The appeal is allowed, and the sentences are substituted.

Orders