Simpson v The King - [2025] NZHC 1297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WAIHARAKEKE ROHE

CRI-2025-406-002 [2025] NZHC 1297

BETWEEN
SHANNON SIMPSON

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 20 May 2025

Appearances: M Zintl for Appellant
M A O’Donoghue for Respondent

Judgment: 23 May 2025

Reissued: 30 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

[Appeal against sentence]

Introduction

[1] Mr Simpson appeals his two cumulative sentences of five years’ imprisonment and one year and 10 months’ imprisonment (together six years and 10 months’ imprisonment).1 He pleaded guilty to aggravated wounding,2 robbery,3 unlawfully taking a motor vehicle,4 four charges of theft,5 unlawful possession of a pistol,6 four

1      R v Simpson [2024] NZDC 4672 [sentencing notes].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 191(1); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 234; maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 226(1); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
5      Sections 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
6      Arms Act 1983, s 50(1)(a); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment or $4,000 fine.

SIMPSON v R [2025] NZHC 1297 [23 May 2025]

charges of driving whilst disqualified (his 19th to 22nd time overall),7 dangerous driving,8 failing to stop when followed by red and blue flashing lights (3rd or subsequent),9 refusing request to provide blood (3rd or subsequent)10 and to breaching his release conditions. He was also convicted and discharged for possessing a methamphetamine pipe,11 and was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence until 7 July 2029.

[2] Mr Simpson submits that the sentence is manifestly excessive because the District Court Judge only gave him a 15 per cent discount for his guilty pleas, as opposed to the full discount of 25 per cent, and did not give a discrete discount of five per cent for remorse.

Background to the offending

[3] On 12 June 2023 in Blenheim, Mr Simpson was driving while disqualified and stole petrol.

[4] At about 9.30 am on 28 June 2023 in Christchurch, Mr Simpson unlawfully took a Nissan car from Ms M, who had left it running on the side of the road while she closed a gate. He drove away.

[5] At about 10.10 am that morning, Mr Simpson drove up slowly behind Mrs E as she returned to her vehicle in a mall carpark, coming within arm’s reach of her. Mrs E was 83 years old at the time and did not hear the vehicle approaching. Mr Simpson reached out from his seat and grabbed Mrs E’s handbag, then accelerated away. Mrs E was unable to free herself immediately from the handbag and was dragged at least five metres along the concrete of the carpark, suffering injuries which required hospital admission. Mr Simpson released his grip soon after Mrs E freed herself, so drove off without the handbag.

7      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(4); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or
$6,000 fine.
8      Section 35(1)(b); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment or $4,500 fine.
9      Sections 52A(1)(a)(ii), 52A(5), 52A(6) and 114(2); maximum penalty three…

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 Simpson v The King

Details

AGLC: Simpson v The King [2025] NZHC 1297
Case: [2025] NZHC 1297
Decision Date: 23 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr. Simpson, appealed his sentences of six years and ten months' imprisonment, comprising two cumulative sentences, following his conviction on multiple charges, including aggravated wounding, robbery, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, theft, unlawful possession of a pistol, and driving-related offenses. Mr. Simpson argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the District Court Judge only gave him a 15 per cent discount for his guilty pleas, instead of the full discount of 25 per cent, and did not give a five per cent discount for remorse. The court had to decide whether the District Court Judge erred in the discount for guilty pleas, the discount for remorse, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The High Court found that the District Court Judge erred in not granting the full 25 per cent discount for Mr. Simpson’s guilty plea. The High Court was persuaded that the lapse of time between the original charges being laid and the guilty plea did not indicate delay, rather responsible counsel seeking to ensure the charging was appropriate. The High Court was also persuaded that the District Court Judge erred in declining to grant a five per cent discount for Mr. Simpson’s remorse. The High Court concluded that the decision not to award the full guilty plea discount and a discount for remorse meant the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was allowed, the sentence of six years and ten months' imprisonment was set aside, and a sentence of five years and four months' imprisonment was imposed.

Orders