Smythe v Police - [2025] NZHC 3544

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2025-443-000048

[2025] NZHC 3544

BETWEEN
CHAZ GORDON SMYTHE

Appellant

AND

THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 20 November 2025

Appearances:

P M Keegan KC for Appellant I P L Barfucci for Respondent

Judgment:

20 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[Sentence appeal]

Introduction

[1] On 26 August 2026, Judge Hikaka sentenced the appellant to four years’ imprisonment and reparation of $2,800 for the following charges:

(a)theft from a dwelling over $1,000;1

(b)wounding with intent to injure;2

(c)two counts of unlawfully taking a motorcycle;3

(d)receiving property over $1,000;4

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(b) — maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 188(2) — maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 226(1) — maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 246 and 247(a) — maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

SMYTHE v THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 3544 [20 November 2025]

(e)two counts of unlawfully getting upon a motorcycle;5

(f)two counts of burglary ($500 – $5,000) by night;6

(g)burglary ($500 – $5,000) by day;7

(h)attempting to unlawfully take a motor vehicle;8 and

(i)theft of car.9

[2] The appellant now appeals his sentence on the grounds that the Judge failed to apply an adequate reduction for personal mitigating factors and an early plea of guilty.

The offending

Theft in a dwelling and wounding with intent to injure

[3] On 25 January 2025, the appellant arrived at the victim’s address unannounced. The victim told the appellant that he was expecting guests and told him to return that afternoon.

[4] Prior to leaving the victim’s address, the appellant sat in the victim’s bedroom. When the victim noticed that his cell phone was missing from his bedroom, he confronted the appellant about stealing it. The cell phone was valued at $3,000. As the appellant was attempting to leave the address, the victim held onto him and the pair began to engage in a physical confrontation.

[5] The appellant was holding a knife that he had picked up from the floor. The appellant cut the victim’s left forearm causing the victim to bleed profusely. When the victim’s cell phone dropped to the ground, the victim released the appellant. The victim sustained a two cm laceration and required stitches.

5      Section 226(2) — maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
6      Section 231(a) — maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
7      Section 231(1)(a) — maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
8      Section 226(2) — maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
9      Sections 219 and 223(c) — maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment.

[6]The appellant told the police that he acted out of self-defence.

Unlawfully taking a motorcycle

[7] On 16 April 2025, the appellant stole a moped. The appellant proceeded to steal a motor scooter the next day on 17 April 2025.

[8] On 20 April 2025, the appellant was driving the stolen scooter and stole another motorcycle and left it behind. On the…

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 Smythe v Police

Details

AGLC: Smythe v Police [2025] NZHC 3544
Case: [2025] NZHC 3544
Decision Date: 20 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Chaz Gordon Smythe appeals against the sentence imposed on him by Judge Hikaka, who sentenced him to four years' imprisonment and reparation of $2,800. Smythe's appeal focuses on the grounds that the Judge failed to adequately reduce the sentence for personal mitigating factors and his early plea of guilty. The legal issue before the Court was whether the Judge's sentence was an error in discretion that warranted a different sentence. The Court of Appeal in Tutakangahau v R sets out that an appellate court will not intervene where the sentence is within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles. The Court found that the Judge made an arithmetical error in the calculation of the sentence, and that a 25 per cent reduction for the appellant's early guilty plea should have been applied. The Court therefore substituted a sentence of three years and six months' imprisonment in place of the original four years' imprisonment.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was quashed. The sentence of three years and six months' imprisonment is substituted in its place. The order for reparation is unchanged.

Orders