Pritchard v The King - [2025] NZHC 1698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000075

[2025] NZHC 1698

BETWEEN
EMMANUEL PRITCHARD

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 23 June 2025

Appearances:

A W Slipper for Appellant

M W Nathan and R G Hayden for Respondent

Judgment:

25 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW

This judgment was delivered by Justice Andrew on 25 June 2025 at 2.00 pm
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date: ………………………………

PRITCHARD v R [2025] NZHC 1698 [25 April 2025]

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against sentence. It is a case of home invasion; weapons were involved and one of the victims was only three years old.

[2] In the District Court, the appellant, Emmanuel Pritchard, and his two co-offenders, pleaded guilty1 to one charge of aggravated burglary,2 two charges of assault with a weapon,3 and one charge of assault on a child.4 Mr Pritchard was sentenced by Judge S J Lance to 36 months’ imprisonment.5

[3]The appeal is advanced on two grounds. It is said that the Judge erred:

(a)by adopting a starting point that was too high given Mr Pritchard’s lesser involvement in the offending; and

(b)by not allowing a greater amount of reductions for Mr Pritchard’s personal mitigating circumstances.

[4] Mr Slipper, for Mr Pritchard, contends that an end sentence of “24.15 months’ imprisonment” should have been imposed – and when one month is deducted from that total to reflect the time Mr Pritchard spent on restrictive monitoring, the end sentence would have come below the threshold for a community-based sentence to be considered.

[5] The Crown opposes the appeal. I must allow the appeal if satisfied that for any reason there was an error in the sentence imposed on Mr Pritchard, and a different sentence should be imposed.6

1      Mr Pritchard pleaded guilty following a sentencing indication given by Judge Gibson on 10 May 2024. Mr Slipper, for Mr Pritchard says that indication was not accepted by Mr Pritchard.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 232(1)(a) and 66(2): maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 202C(1)(a) and 66(2): maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 194(a) and 66(2): maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
5      R v Pritchard [2025] NZDC 763.
6      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250. See Palmer v R [2016] NZCA 541 at [17] and Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [35].

The offending

[6] Mr Pritchard was convicted along with two co-offenders: Messrs Vui and Sau. The following summary of their offending, with a focus on Mr Pritchard’s offending, is drawn from the agreed summary of facts.

[7] The victims of the offending are a couple (who I will refer to as RM and AT) and their then three-year-old child (RI), who were residing in emergency accommodation at an address in Epsom. At about 11.35 pm on 10 January 2024, the victims were at home, in bed. AT was…

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 Pritchard v The King

Details

AGLC: Pritchard v The King [2025] NZHC 1698
Case: [2025] NZHC 1698
Decision Date: 25 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Emmanuel Pritchard appeals against the sentence imposed by the District Court for his involvement in an aggravated home invasion where weapons were used and a three-year-old child was present. The Crown opposed the appeal. The appellant was sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment. The appeal was based on two grounds: first, that the Judge set an inappropriate starting point for the sentence, and second, that the Judge did not adequately reduce the sentence for the appellant's personal mitigating circumstances.

The court found that the Judge did not err in setting the starting point for the sentence. The offence was a joint enterprise with all three offenders entering the home and participating in the assault. The Judge adopted a global approach, considering the aggravating features of the charges. The court found that it was open to the Judge to adopt the same starting point for all offenders, given their shared culpability. The court also found that the Judge appropriately considered the differences in the roles of the offenders when setting the end sentence, and that the reductions for the appellant's mitigating factors were within the appropriate range.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stands.

Orders