Legal Research
Cases
Reti v Police

Reti v Police

Case [2025] NZHC 877 10 April 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

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

CRI-2024-488-0133

[2025] NZHC 877

BETWEEN
JORDAN RETI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 April 2025

Appearances:

JAG Moroney for appellant

B M Bosomworth for respondent

Date of judgment:

10 April 2025

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This reasons for judgment was delivered by me on 10 April 2025 at 3.30pm.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Thode Utting, Auckland MWIS, Whangārei

RETI v POLICE [2025] NZHC 877 [10 April 2025]

[1] Jordan Reti appeals the 17 December 2024 decision of Judge D J McDonald in the District Court at Whangārei,1 sentencing him to 17 months’ imprisonment on his guilty pleas to 10 charges of a variety of nuisance offending in Palmerston North. At its partially remote hearing today, I dismissed the appeal with reasons to follow. These are those.

Background

[2] Mr Reti’s offending comprised shoplifting clothing to a value exceeding $750 from chain stores on four occasions between May and June 2024,2 driving while disqualified in June 2024 (a fourth offence),3 escaping police custody in July 20244 and breaching community detention and intensive supervision sentences for family violence offending by both absconding and not reporting in August 2024.5

[3] Mr Reti has an uninspiring criminal record stretching back to 2011 of some 50 convictions for similar offending—shoplifting, driving while disqualified (among other transport-related offending), breaching sentence conditions and family violence—relatively consistently over that period.

Judgment under appeal

[4] The Judge took the escape from custody as Mr Reti’s lead offence for sentencing, imposing a six-month imprisonment sentence, uplifted by:6

… two months for the shoplifting, four months for driving while disqualified, two months for the breach of the community work and two months for the intensive supervision and two months for resentence.

“Standing back” from that 18-month total, the Judge took a start point of 16 months’ imprisonment.7

1      Police v Reti [2024] NZDC 31962.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a) and 32(4). Maximum penalty: two years’ imprisonment or a
$6,000 fine.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 120. Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment.
5      Sentencing Act 2002, ss 69(G)(a) and 70(A)(a). Both have the same maximum penalty: six years’ imprisonment or a $6,000 fine.
6      Police v Reti, above n 1, at [12].
7 At [13].

[5] The Judge applied a 20 per cent or three-month discount for Mr Reti’s guilty pleas, “not at the first available opportunity”, uplifted by two months for his previous convictions and another two months for resentencing, resulting in 17 months’ imprisonment.8 Given Mr Reti’s previous sentence non-compliance, the Judge declined to convert that short-term sentence to one of home detention.

[6] For Mr Reti, John Moroney submits the Judge erred by failing to follow the mandated two-step sentencing process and applying excessive uplifts for Mr Reti’s personal circumstances (argued already addressed in the Judge’s start point).

Approach on appeal

[7]…

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 Reti v Police

Details

AGLC: Reti v Police [2025] NZHC 877
Case: [2025] NZHC 877
Decision Date: 10 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jordan Reti appeals a 17-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Court for a range of nuisance offences. The sentencing Judge took Mr Reti’s escape from police custody as the lead offence and applied uplifts for Mr Reti’s guilty pleas, previous convictions, and resentencing. Mr Reti argues the Judge erred in the sentencing process and applied excessive uplifts. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Judge followed a sound approach and the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The sentencing process was correctly applied by calculating the guilty plea discount after considering personal aggravating factors. The two-month uplifts for previous convictions and resentencing were also appropriate, given Mr Reti’s persistent offending over more than a decade. The 17-month sentence was within the sentencing discretion for the range of offending and did not exceed the maximum penalties for the relevant offences. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders