R v Bruce - [2025] NZHC 3280

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2019-088-001656

[2025] NZHC 3280

THE KING

v

MYLES ANTHONY BRUCE

Hearing: 30 October 2025

Appearances:

B M O’Connor for Crown

M P Hislop and C S Taylor for Defendant

Sentence:

30 October 2025

SENTENCE OF EDWARDS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Whangārei M P Hislop, Auckland
C S Taylor, Ruakākā

R v BRUCE [2025] NZHC 3280 [30 October 2025]

[1] Mr Bruce, you are here for sentencing on 31 charges of sexual and violence related offending. I found you guilty on all 31 charges in a Judge-alone trial earlier this year. I acquitted you of two other charges.

[2] The convictions relate to offending against your five former partners over a period spanning approximately 15 years. Each victim has given a victim impact statement today. I will summarise what they have said shortly, but I want to acknowledge what they have said at the outset and thank them for their courage in sharing their experiences today.

Sentencing process

[3] Sentencing follows a process. The key issue I must determine today is whether to impose a finite sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment, or to impose a sentence of preventive detention. A sentence of preventive detention is a sentence of indeterminate length — the Parole Board decides whether and when it is safe to release a person from custody.

[4] In making that decision, I will first decide on an appropriate finite sentence. That involves assessing a starting point with reference to the seriousness of the offending, and then adjusting that starting point for matters personal to you. I will then consider whether a minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed. After that, I will consider whether this will be your end-sentence or whether to order preventive detention.

[5] In determining your sentence, I take into account the purposes and principles of sentencing set out in the Sentencing Act 2002.

[6] The purposes which are particularly relevant in your case include: holding you accountable; promoting a sense of responsibility in you for the harm caused; denouncing your conduct; deterring you and others from committing the same or similar offences; and protecting the community from you.

[7] The principles that are relevant include: the gravity of your offending; the general desirability of consistency in sentencing; victim information; your personal circumstances, including relevant features of your personal and family background; and the requirement to impose the least restrictive outcome in the circumstances.

Offending

[8] The charges relate to offending between 2000 and 2015. During this period, you had successive relationships with each of the five complainants. The details of your offending are set out in my written reasons for verdicts, and I provide only a brief summary here.

[9] The course of your relationships followed the same…

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 R v Bruce

Details

AGLC: R v Bruce [2025] NZHC 3280
Case: [2025] NZHC 3280
Decision Date: 30 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Myles Anthony Bruce, who was found guilty on 31 charges of sexual and violence-related offences against five former partners over a 15-year period. The court was tasked with determining whether to impose a finite sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment or a sentence of preventive detention. The legal issues included assessing the seriousness of Bruce's offending, determining an appropriate starting point for his sentence, and adjusting the starting point for personal mitigating and aggravating factors. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including holding Bruce accountable, promoting a sense of responsibility for the harm caused, denouncing his conduct, deterring him and others from committing similar offences, and protecting the community.

The court established a starting point of 19 years' imprisonment for the sexual offending and an uplift of two years for the violence-related offending, resulting in a starting point of 21 years' imprisonment. The court then adjusted the starting point for personal mitigating and aggravating factors, resulting in a fixed sentence of 19 years' imprisonment. The court also considered imposing a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years, as the scale of Bruce's offending, which covered five relationships over a 15-year timeframe, involved repeated acts of sexual violence against intimate partners, and included horrific acts of physical harm and psychological abuse.

However, the court ultimately decided against imposing a sentence of preventive detention, instead opting for a lengthy finite sentence of imprisonment. The court took into account the intended sentence of 19 years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years, and the availability of an extended supervision order if Bruce still posed a risk to intimate partners following his release.

Final orders: For the 31 charges on which Bruce was found guilty, he is sentenced to 19 years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years. All sentences are to be served concurrently, so that the total end-sentence is 19 years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years.

Orders