Rogers v Police - [2025] NZHC 627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2024-463-136

[2025] NZHC 627

BETWEEN
LARNDEE ROGERS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 24 March 2025

Appearances:

A McManus (on behalf of L Robertson) for Appellant T T Taane for Respondent

Judgment:

24 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 24 March 2025 at 3.30 pm
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors:
Pollett Legal, Tauranga
Lance Lawson Ltd, Rotorua

ROGERS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 627 [24 March 2025]

[1] Ms Rogers pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of theft by a person in a special relationship.1 On 28 November 2024, Judge L M Bidois sentenced her to two years three months’ imprisonment.2

[2] Ms Rogers appeals against sentence on the basis that the sentence the Judge imposed was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle. She says the Judge ought to have provided her with a discount to reflect the fact that a sentence of imprisonment will impose severe hardship on her daughter. Had the Judge taken that approach, Ms Rogers contends she would have received a sentence of less than two years’ imprisonment. This would have enabled the sentence to be converted to one of home detention.

The offending

[3] Ms Rogers was employed in an administrative role by a charitable trust that carried out educational functions within the community. It had a very limited pool of funding. Over a lengthy period, Ms Rogers stole money from the trust on at least 111 occasions. It was estimated that the total amount of money stolen amounted to approximately $340,000. The offending had a devastating effect on Ms Rogers’ employer because it had no means of replacing the funds she had stolen from it.

The sentence

[4] The Judge noted that the offending displayed several aggravating factors. It was premeditated and occurred on numerous occasions over a lengthy period of time. It also resulted in a significant sum of money being stolen. The effect on the victim was very significant. IN addition, the offending involved a considerable breach of trust on the part of Ms Rogers because she abused her trusted position as an employee when she stole the money.3 These factors prompted the Judge to select a starting point of four years’ imprisonment.4

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 220 and 223(a).
2 New Zealand Police v Rogers [2024] NZDC 29220.
3 At [15].
4 At [18].

[5] The Judge then applied a discount of 25 per cent to reflect Ms Rogers’ early guilty plea.5 The Judge also noted that Ms Rogers was remorseful and motivated to address the issues that prompted her to offend. These included the fact that she has a gambling addiction. In addition, Ms Rogers had offered to repay the sum of $1,500 immediately and was prepared to pay a total sum of $25,000 by way…

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 Rogers v Police

Details

AGLC: Rogers v Police [2025] NZHC 627
Case: [2025] NZHC 627
Decision Date: 24 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Larndee Rogers appealed against a sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court for theft by a person in a special relationship. The appeal was heard by Justice Lang in the High Court. The appeal was based on the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle, particularly because it did not adequately consider the severe hardship that would be imposed on Rogers' 13-year-old daughter, who has health issues requiring considerable care and management, which Rogers has been responsible for throughout the daughter's life.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge failed to provide a discount to reflect the severe hardship that would be imposed on Rogers' daughter and whether a sentence of home detention would be more appropriate given the current circumstances. The court held that the sentencing judge did not provide a discount to reflect the issues relating to Rogers' daughter, which should have amounted to around five months, or approximately ten per cent. The court also considered whether a sentence of home detention would be appropriate and concluded that it was, especially given the health issues the daughter has suffered due to the change in caregivers since the original sentence was imposed.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the original sentence. In its place, the court imposed a sentence of seven months’ home detention to be served at the address nominated in the pre-sentence report, effective from 26 March 2025.

Orders