Reed v Police - [2025] NZHC 749

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-703

[2025] NZHC 749

BETWEEN
MICHAEL HENRY REED

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 31 March 2025

Appearances:

J E Tulloch for Appellant R Kendall for Respondent

Judgment:

31 March 2025

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland J Tulloch, Auckland

REED v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 749 [31 March 2025]

Introduction

[1] The appellant Michael Reed appeals against a sentence of two years and 10 months’ imprisonment imposed by his honour Judge E M Thomas in the Auckland District Court on 22 August 2024.1

[2]Mr Reed was for sentence on the following charges:

(a)burglary — 19 October 2023;2

(b)failing to answer District Court bail — 19 October 2023;3

(c)breach of community work — 16 November 2023;4

(d)receiving (a Nissan vehicle) — 5 December 2023;5

(e)receiving (laser) — 5 December 2023;6

(f)receiving (a moped motorcycle) — 25 December 2023;7 and

(g)unlawfully in an enclosed yard — 6 March 2024.8

[3] The District Court adopted a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment on the lead charge of burglary and uplifted that to a global starting point of three years’ imprisonment to reflect the remaining charges.

1      New Zealand Police v Reed [2024] NZDC 20605.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a), maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Bail Act 2000, s 24, maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or fine up to $1,000. The oral judgment and District Court judgment refer to District Court bail. This was erroneous. The conviction relates to Police bail.
4      Sentencing Act 2002, s 71(1)(a), maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or fine up to
$1,000.
5      Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 247(a), maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 247(a), maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
7      Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 247(b), maximum penalty one year imprisonment.
8      Summary Offences Act 1981, 29(1)(b), maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or fine up to $2,000.

[4] A 10 per cent uplift (three months) was applied to reflect Mr Reed’s criminal history and the fact that the offending was committed on bail or while subject to sentence.

[5] A 15 per cent reduction (five months) was applied to recognise Mr Reed’s guilty plea to the burglary charge.

[6]The end sentence was two years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

[7] The appellant says the end sentence was manifestly excessive because the starting point for the lead burglary charge of 18 months was too high.

[8] The appellant also seeks to file fresh evidence on appeal, namely an alcohol and drug report addressing Mr Reed’s addiction issues and says that a further discount should be applied to recognise those factors.

[9] The respondent opposes the appeal and says the District Court Judge did not err, and the end sentence was not manifestly excessive. The respondent acknowledges that the additional evidence provided, namely the alcohol and drug report, would have justified a potential reduction of 10…

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 Reed v Police

Details

AGLC: Reed v Police [2025] NZHC 749
Case: [2025] NZHC 749
Decision Date: 31 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Michael Henry Reed appeals against his two years and ten months' imprisonment sentence imposed by the Auckland District Court on 22 August 2024. Reed was sentenced on charges including burglary, failing to answer bail, breach of community work, receiving stolen goods, and unlawfully being in an enclosed yard. The District Court adopted a starting point of 18 months for the lead charge of burglary, which was uplifted to three years to account for the remaining charges. Reed argues that the starting point for the burglary charge was too high and that additional mitigating factors, such as his addiction issues, should have been considered.

The legal issues before the court were whether the District Court erred in setting the starting point for the burglary charge and whether additional mitigating factors should have been considered. The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the new evidence presented on appeal warranted a reduction in sentence. The respondent argued that the District Court did not err and that the sentence was within an acceptable range. The court assessed whether the end sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the new evidence warranted a reduction.

Wilkinson-Smith J found that while the starting point for the burglary charge might have been high, the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the defendant's criminal history and recidivism warranted a high starting point. The new evidence regarding Reed's addiction issues, while cogent, would not have substantially altered the sentence. The court also found that expressions of remorse were unlikely to attract a discount given Reed's ongoing offending behavior. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence was upheld.

The final orders were that the appeal is dismissed and the sentence imposed by the District Court is upheld.

Orders