Legal Research
Cases
R v Lovejoy

R v Lovejoy

Case [2025] NZHC 3270 29 October 2025

Unconscionable Conduct

Standing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

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 3270

THE KING

v

JAEDYN PATRICK LOVEJOY

Hearing: 29 October 2025

Appearances:

G J C Carter for Crown

J D Munro and S T L Teppett for Defendant

Sentencing notes:

29 October 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF GWYN J

Introduction

[1] Jaedyn Patrick Lovejoy, a jury has found you guilty of manslaughter as a party.1 You now appear for sentence.

[2] The charge of manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, but I say at the outset that that is not the penalty I am going to impose today.

[3] As you know, you are one of three defendants to be sentenced today for your role in the tragic events of 20 January 2024, in which the victim, Mr O’Rourke, was robbed of methamphetamine and then shot in the head. I have sentenced two of your

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 171 and 66(2).

R v LOVEJOY [2025] NZHC 3270 [29 October 2025]

co-defendants, Windsor Martin and Grayson Gray, on charges of aggravated robbery this morning. Mr McLean, who was found guilty of murder, will be sentenced at a later date.

[4] The sentence I impose today has to take into account the purposes and principles in the Sentencing Act 2002. The particular purposes of sentencing that I think are relevant to you are:

(a)to hold you accountable for the harm done to Mr O’Rourke, to his family and to the community by your offending;

(b)to promote in you a sense of responsibility for, and an acknowledgment of, that harm;

(c)to denounce and deter your conduct;

(d)to protect the community; and

(e)to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

[5] I have to consider the seriousness of the offending and your degree of culpability, or moral responsibility for it. I must also compare the type of offence with other types of offences, as well as other sentences where someone else has committed a similar offence. That comparison with other cases is particularly important today, as I must try to ensure the sentences the four of you, you and the other three defendants, are proportionate to your roles in the offending.

[6] Because sentencing is a public process, I have to set out the detail of the offending for which a jury has found you guilty. Then I will talk about your personal circumstances and I will refer briefly to the victim impact statements I have heard this morning.

[7] I will then calculate a sentence by adopting a two-step approach: first, I will set a starting point based on the offending. Second, I will consider whether there are

any increases or discounts that should be applied to that starting point to reflect your personal situation. That will lead me to the end sentence I will impose.

Facts

[8]First I am going to set out the detail of your offending.

[9] On Saturday 20 January 2024, Damon…

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 Lovejoy

Details

AGLC: R v Lovejoy [2025] NZHC 3270
Case: [2025] NZHC 3270
Decision Date: 29 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Gwyn J sentenced Jaedyn Patrick Lovejoy for his role in the aggravated robbery and subsequent death of Mr O’Rourke. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence that reflected the purposes and principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2002. The legal issues included deciding a starting point for the sentence based on the seriousness of the offence and Lovejoy's culpability, as well as applying any relevant discounts or increases based on personal circumstances.

Gwyn J began by setting out the facts of the case, highlighting Lovejoy's involvement in the robbery and his awareness of the firearm. The court then determined a starting point for sentencing by comparing Lovejoy's case with other similar cases, considering factors such as the nature of the offence, the use of gang patches, and the presence of a firearm. The court settled on a starting point of seven years’ imprisonment.

The court then considered various personal factors that could result in discounts to the starting point. Lovejoy's willingness to plead guilty to manslaughter before trial warranted a 10% discount. His youth at the time of the offence resulted in a further 15% discount. Additionally, the court granted a 5% discount for the impact of imprisonment on Lovejoy's young children. Finally, the court credited Lovejoy with ten months for the time he spent on electronically monitored bail.

After applying these discounts and the credit for time spent on bail, the court arrived at a final sentence of four years’ imprisonment. The court declined to impose a minimum period of imprisonment, leaving the decision to the Parole Board. The final order was that Lovejoy be sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for manslaughter.

Orders