R v Gray - [2025] NZHC 3250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2024-054-681

[2025] NZHC 3250

THE KING

v

GRAYSON GRAY

Hearing: 29 October 2025

Appearances:

G J C Carter for Crown

P J Drummond for Defendant

Sentencing notes:

29 October 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF GWYN J

Introduction

[1] Mr Gray, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated robbery.1 The maximum penalty for the charge of aggravated robbery is 14 years’ imprisonment.

[2] As you recall, you came before me for a sentence indication in August of this year. As I indicated then, your sentence would need to take account of the fact that you are currently serving a sentence of imprisonment for other aggravated robberies, any guilty plea and your personal circumstances. In August, I indicated that if you were to plead guilty at that point, your sentence for aggravated robbery would be between two years and one month’s imprisonment and two years and three months’

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 235(b) and 66(2).

R v GRAY [2025] NZHC 3250 [29 October 2025]

imprisonment depending on whether I received any evidence of remorse, and that that sentence would be served cumulatively on the sentence you are currently serving on other charges. You accepted that sentence indication and pleaded guilty.

[3] Since then I have received a letter, which Mr Drummond referred to, that you have written to Mr O’Rourke’s whānau, expressing your remorse. I will discuss that in more detail later.

[4] Although you will know the comments I made in my sentencing indication back in August, because this is a public process, I am going to repeat some of those comments today to explain how I have reached the final sentence. I will also describe the background factors that are relevant to the sentencing process.

[5] At this point I do want to explain to those of you in the public gallery that, as Mr Drummond mentioned and as I have said to Mr Gray, he asked for a sentence indication earlier this year. I gave a sentence indication and indicated that if he accepted it, unless anything changed substantively, that would be his sentence when I came to sentencing and he pleaded guilty on that basis. So when I refer to the sentencing indication that is what that means.

[6] In sentencing you today, Mr Gray, I apply a law called the Sentencing Act 2002, which sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing. The main purposes of sentencing in your case are to hold you accountable for the harm you have caused to Mr O’Rourke, and his whānau and to the community; to denounce your conduct; to deter you, and others, from committing the same kind of offending; to protect the community; and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into society.2 The sentence I decide on has to mark the nature of your crime, but also to acknowledge who you are and your…

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 Gray

Details

AGLC: R v Gray [2025] NZHC 3250
Case: [2025] NZHC 3250
Decision Date: 29 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Grayson Taikoi Gray was sentenced for a charge of aggravated robbery. Gray was the driver for a group of offenders who committed a robbery at a residence in Palmerston North on 20 January 2024, during which the victim, Damon O’Rourke, was shot and killed. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing, the harm caused, and Gray's personal circumstances and culpability.

The key legal issue was to establish an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering Gray's limited role in the actual robbery compared to his co-defendants, and the principle of totality in relation to his existing sentence for previous offences. The court decided that a starting point of four years and six months was appropriate, but had to adjust this to three years to comply with the principle of totality. Mitigating factors such as Gray's guilty plea, personal background, and remorse were also considered. The court concluded that Gray was genuinely remorseful and granted a discount for this, along with other personal factors.

Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of two years and one month's imprisonment, to be served cumulatively on Gray's existing sentence. The sentence reflected the nature of the crime, the harm caused, and Gray's personal circumstances.

Orders