Legal Research
Cases
Simmonds v The King

Simmonds v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 1751 26 June 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-109

CRI-2025-409-110 [2025] NZHC 1751

BETWEEN
JAREN LEE MASON SIMMONDS

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 26 June 2025

Appearances:

M J Smit for Appellant

M W Fulton for Respondent

Judgment:

26 June 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(appeal against sentence)

SIMMONDS v R [2025] NZHC 1751 [26 June 2025]

Introduction

[1] Jaren Simmonds was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment by Judge M J Callaghan on 30 April 2025 having pleaded guilty to charges of:1

(a)driving under the influence of a drug causing injury;2

(b)impeding breathing;3

(c)burglary;4

(d)wilful damage (x2);5 and

(e)operating a motor vehicle causing sustained loss of traction.6

[2] Mr Simmonds appeals his sentence on the ground insufficient weight was given to mitigating factors giving rise to a manifestly excessive end sentence.

Facts of the offending

[3] On the afternoon of 27 May 2024, police observed the driver of a car, registered to Mr Simmonds, performing a handbrake turn before reversing and parking in Mr Simmonds’ driveway. The intentional braking of the tyres caused smoke and a loud screech to come from the rear wheels.

[4] Overnight, between 15 and 16 June 2024, Mr Simmonds went to a Christchurch community garden, jemmied the bolt to the locked garden gate and the door to the building. Once inside, Mr Simmonds stole a television with the remote

1      R v Simmonds [2025] NZDC 9505. Mr Simmonds was initially charged with three additional offences but these were withdrawn by leave pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 146.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 61(2)(b)(i)—maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment or $20,000 fine.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 189A(b)—maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, s 231(1)(a)—maximum penalty ten years’ imprisonment.
5      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a)—maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or
$2,000 fine.
6      Land Transport Act 1998, s 36A(1)(c)—maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $4,5000 fine.

control and some knives and forks. Reparation of $296 was sought from the community group to replace the stolen items.

Impeding breathing and wilful damage

[5] The victim and Mr Simmonds had been in an intimate relationship for approximately a year.7

[6] Early on Friday 28 June 2024, Mr Simmonds arrived at the victim’s address in Christchurch, an argument ensued, and the victim asked Mr Simmonds to leave—he refused. Mr Simmonds flipped the victim’s bed mattress and the victim tried to leave. Mr Simmonds stopped the victim on the internal staircase and pinned her on her back on the stairs. He then held her down by holding his right forearm across her chest. With his right hand he held the victim’s throat and squeezed for five to 10 seconds, during which she struggled to breathe and thought she was going to die. Mr Simmonds then left the address.

[7] At about 9.00 pm, Mr Simmonds returned to the victim’s address. He pushed her television (valued at $800) off its stand, causing extensive damage.

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 Simmonds v The King

Details

AGLC: Simmonds v The King [2025] NZHC 1751
Case: [2025] NZHC 1751
Decision Date: 26 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jaren Lee Mason Simmonds appeals his sentence, imposed by Judge M J Callaghan on 30 April 2025, for various offences including driving under the influence of a drug causing injury, impeding breathing, burglary, wilful damage, and operating a motor vehicle causing sustained loss of traction. Simmonds argues that insufficient weight was given to mitigating factors, leading to a manifestly excessive sentence. The court must decide whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether appropriate deductions were applied.

The court first considers the guilty plea credit, noting that different pleas were entered at various times. The sentencing judge allowed a 15% deduction, which was lower than the 22.5% proposed by both the Crown and defence. The court finds that a higher deduction was available and that another judge might have allowed the proposed 22.5% deduction. Regarding addiction, the court acknowledges that addiction might logically give rise to a deduction but finds that Simmonds' drug addiction bears little causal connection to his offending. The court does not consider it appropriate to allow a discrete deduction for addiction and rehabilitative prospects. The court also notes that the deduction for remorse and participation in restorative justice conferences at least partially recognises Simmonds' acknowledgment and motivation to address his addiction.

In assessing whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, the court finds that Simmonds engaged in very serious offending over an eight-month period, including serious family violence, burglary, and a serious driving offence with real consequences for his daughter. The court agrees with the Crown that another judge might have imposed a modest uplift for Simmonds' prior offending and, particularly, for his offending on bail. However, the court is not satisfied that the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders