Robinson v Police - [2025] NZHC 2862

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

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

CRI-2024-488-113

CRI-2024-488-114 [2025] NZHC 2862

BETWEEN
JOHN CLIFFORD WALTER ROBINSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 24 September 2025

Appearances:

C Cull KC for the appellant

M Wilkinson for the respondent

Judgment:

30 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J

[Appeal against conviction and sentence]

Solicitors:
Catherine Cull KC, Kerikeri MWIS Lawyers, Whangārei

JOHN CLIFFORD WALTER ROBINSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2862 [30 September 2025]

[1] Mr Robinson appeals against his conviction and sentence in two separate proceedings. The first is a conviction of theft of livestock.1 This was the subject of a judge-alone trial before Judge D J Orchard in the District Court at Kaikohe.2 The second is a conviction of wilful damage.3 This was the subject of a judge-alone trial before Judge D J McDonald in the District Court at Kaikohe.4 On 18 October 2024, Judge McDonald sentenced Mr Robinson in relation to both matters.5

Theft of livestock

[2] Mr Robinson is, through a company, one of the owners of a 40-hectare rural property near Opua which operates as a quarry. Brent Suckling owns a 50-hectare neighbouring property, which shares a boundary with Mr Robinson’s property.6

[3] Mr Robinson and Mr Suckling met to discuss damage to the fence between the two properties that had occurred because of forestry work Mr Robinson was carrying out on his land. Mr Robinson reassured Mr Suckling that he was going to erect a fence at his cost.7

[4] Around six months later, they had a second conversation when Mr Suckling called Mr Robinson about the condition of the fence. Mr Suckling was concerned about keeping his sheep and horses on his property. During the conversation, Mr Robinson said he wanted to move the fence a little over the boundary. Mr Suckling said that he wanted a track on his side of the boundary and, if that could be achieved, he might be open to the idea of moving the position of the fence. His evidence was that Mr Robinson agreed to that and he also agreed that he would not carry out the work unless Mr Suckling was present and without giving him the opportunity to move his livestock before the fence went down.8

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 220A. Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
2      New Zealand Police v Robinson [2024] NZDC 17540.
3      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11. Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
4      New Zealand Police v Robinson [2024] NZDC 11829.
5      New Zealand Police v Robinson [2024] NZDC 298932.
6      New Zealand Police v Robinson, above n 2, at [1].
7 At [3].
8 At [3].

[5] Mr Suckling said that what in fact happened was that Mr Robinson pulled the fence down without involving him. Further, Mr Robinson carried out preparatory work that indicated he planned to re-erect the fence well over the existing boundary.9

[6] A heated conversation…

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 Robinson v Police

Details

AGLC: Robinson v Police [2025] NZHC 2862
Case: [2025] NZHC 2862
Decision Date: 30 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Robinson v Police, the High Court of New Zealand considered an appeal by Mr. John Clifford Walter Robinson against his conviction and sentence for theft of livestock and wilful damage. Mr. Robinson, through his company, was the owner of a 40-hectare property that operated as a quarry near Opua. He owned the property jointly with another company owned by Mr. Brent Suckling, who owned a neighbouring 50-hectare property. Disputes arose between Mr. Robinson and Mr. Suckling regarding a boundary fence and a driveway. Mr. Robinson was convicted in the District Court of theft of livestock for intentionally detaining Mr. Suckling’s sheep on his property and wilful damage for smashing a section of a driveway on Mr. Suckling’s property.

The High Court considered whether the District Court erred in convicting Mr. Robinson. Regarding the theft of livestock, the Court found that the District Court correctly convicted Mr. Robinson based on evidence that he intentionally detained the sheep without Mr. Suckling’s consent and intended to use them to force Mr. Suckling to pay for repairs to the fence. The Court held that the District Court was not required to prove that the sheep were “taken” by Mr. Robinson and that it was sufficient to show that he exercised control over them. Regarding the wilful damage, the Court found that the District Court properly considered the evidence and concluded that Mr. Robinson did not have a genuine belief that he was entitled to damage the driveway.

The High Court also considered whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The District Court sentenced Mr. Robinson to one month of community detention for the theft of livestock and three months’ community detention for the wilful damage. The sentences were cumulative, resulting in a total of four months’ community detention. The High Court found that the sentences were within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles and dismissed the appeal against sentence. The Court held that marking the behaviour with a conviction would not be sufficient to mark the gravity of the offending and that the curfew imposed as part of the sentence, while inconvenient, was not manifestly excessive.

Orders