Solomon v Police - [2025] NZHC 2225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000171

[2025] NZHC 2225

BETWEEN
DANIEL SOLOMON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 7 July 2025

Appearances:

G Burns for Appellant

O Kazmierow for Respondent

Judgment:

8 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF MOUNT J

Appeal Against Sentence

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 August 2025 at 12 pm,

………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: Meredith Connell Verus Chambers

SOLOMON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2225 [8 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] On 8 April 2025, Judge Guthrie sentenced Daniel Solomon to a total of two years and 11 months’ imprisonment for:1

(a)four burglaries;

(b)eleven other minor dishonesty offences (obtaining by deception, three charges of receiving stolen property and seven charges of theft); and

(c)five minor drug offences (possessing methamphetamine, two charges of possessing cannabis, and two charges of possessing utensils).

[2] Mr Solomon had pleaded guilty to all charges. He appeals on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive. He submits the starting point was too high, and that the Judge erred in double counting personal aggravating factors.

Background

[3] On 20 January 2024,2 the appellant sold a Stihl leaf blower and a measuring wheel to Cash Converters in Takanini for $70. Someone had stolen these items from a vehicle in New Lynn the preceding night. The appellant pleaded guilty to receiving stolen goods (under $500) and causing loss by deception (under $500).

[4] Later that evening, the appellant entered the garage of a residential home. He searched through cupboards and shelves and took around 10 fishing rods, work tools, a gas cooker, a level and a sash clamp. He pulled out some carpet cleaner and left it on the floor and left a fishing reel on the bonnet of the car in the garage. He also entered the car and stole an iPod and cash from the centre console and sunglasses from the glovebox. In total, he stole approximately $4,800 worth of property. Over the next two days he sold many of the items to Cash Converters in Henderson and Mount Roskill. He pleaded guilty to burglary.

1 Police v Solomon [2025] NZDC 4030; and Police v Solomon [2025] NZDC 5533.
2 The summary of facts and the Judge’s notes say January 2023, but the charging document says 2024, which appears to be correct.

[5] On 14 March 2024, police searched the appellant’s car, which had been left hanging over a commercial driveway and a grass verge. In a wallet in the appellant’s backpack there were several stolen identity cards. On 18 March 2024, police arrested and searched the appellant. He had a glass pipe for smoking methamphetamine and more stolen identity cards and bank cards. He pleaded guilty to two charges of receiving stolen property (under $500) and possessing utensils for the use of methamphetamine.

[6] The appellant admitted he stole the items from the garage but said he did not remember how much as he was probably high…

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 Solomon v Police

Details

AGLC: Solomon v Police [2025] NZHC 2225
Case: [2025] NZHC 2225
Decision Date: 8 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Daniel Solomon appealed against his sentence imposed by Judge Guthrie in the Auckland District Court. The appeal pertained to the severity of a sentence of two years and 11 months' imprisonment, which Solomon received for multiple offences including burglaries, dishonesty offences, and drug possession. Solomon argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the starting point was too high, while also claiming that personal aggravating factors were double-counted.

The court reviewed the legal issues concerning the appropriateness of the starting point for the sentence and whether personal aggravating factors were appropriately considered. The court found that while the sentencing judge's methodology did not strictly adhere to the principles set out in Moses v R, the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the totality of the offending and the appellant's criminal history, ultimately concluding that the sentence was within an appropriate range.

The reasoning of the court was that the judge was correct to treat the second set of offences cumulatively due to the separation in time and the nature of the offences committed while on bail. The court also found that although personal aggravating factors were technically double-counted, the final sentence was appropriate given the appellant's extensive criminal history and the impact of his offending on victims.

After reviewing the entire sentencing process, the court determined that the sentence of 35 months' imprisonment was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed as there was no basis to disturb the sentence.

In summary, the court upheld the sentence imposed by the Auckland District Court, finding that the sentence was appropriate despite minor procedural errors in the sentencing methodology. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders