Legal Research
Cases
St John v The King

St John v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 602 21 March 2025

Sentencing

Causation

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Guilty Plea

Rehabilitative Potential

Bail Compliance

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2024-412-000070

[2025] NZHC 602

BETWEEN
DAMIEN MOSES ST JOHN

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 11 March 2025 via AVL from Wellington

Appearances:

S A Saunderson-Warner for Appellant C Flatley for Respondent

Judgment:

21 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] Damien St John was sentenced to two years and five months’ imprisonment in the District Court,1 after he pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated robbery.2 Mr St John appeals the sentence on the basis it was manifestly excessive, because of an unduly high starting point and insufficient credit given for personal mitigating factors. He submits that a short-term prison sentence is appropriate and a sentence of home detention should be substituted.

Facts

[2] Sentencing proceeded on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. On 24 May 2022, the victim, Mr X (who is intellectually disabled and vulnerable) engaged with the co-defendant, Mr Y,3 whom he had known since school, at the Waterloo Hotel in

1      R v St John [2024] NZDC 26644.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 235(b) and 66 (maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment).
3      Name anonymised; order in place pursuant to s 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

ST JOHN v R [2025] NZHC 602 [21 March 2025]

Dunedin. Mr Y gave Mr X a $5 note, which Mr X put in a pokie machine. Mr X won
$500. As Mr Y had supplied the note that was used, he felt he deserved half of the winnings ($250). Mr X went home with his winnings. Later, Mr St John went with Mr Y and other associates to Mr X’s community housing facility. Mr X was inside, along with another individual. The group banged on the ranchslider door with such force that the lock failed. The group moved into the house towards Mr X’s room, as Mr Y yelled threats. The defendants began kicking the bedroom door. The damage to the door was such that the group could enter the bedroom. The victims had retreated to an ensuite.

[3] The defendants, including Mr St John, banged and kicked the ensuite door. The door shattered. Mr St John did not enter the ensuite, but others did. Knives were produced, and the victims were punched and kicked. Mr St John did not participate in the physical violence. The group then took property and left. Mr St John did not take any property. Mr X suffered bruising, lacerations, and the second victim a broken thumb. There has been significant emotional impact.

[4] Mr St John’s fingerprints were found on the outside of the front door to the house and on a fragment of the broken ensuite door. Mr St John was charged one month after the offending in June 2022. He elected trial by jury but pleaded guilty and was sentenced on 1 November 2024.

Sentencing decisions

Co-offender’s sentence

[5] The Judge sentenced Mr St John’s co-offender, Mr Y, in…

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 St John v The King

Details

AGLC: St John v The King [2025] NZHC 602
Case: [2025] NZHC 602
Decision Date: 21 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Damien St John appeals against his sentence of two years and five months’ imprisonment, imposed after he pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated robbery. The central issues in the appeal were whether the starting point was set too high and whether there was insufficient credit given for personal mitigating factors. The Court identified that the starting point for Mr St John's sentence was incorrectly calculated, resulting in a starting point that was two months higher than intended. Although Mr St John did not play an active role in the assault, his participation in breaking down two doors to reach the victims was a significant part of the offending. The Court held that a starting point of three years and seven months appropriately reflected Mr St John's culpability. The Court also found that the sentence should have included a three-month credit for compliance with bail conditions, and an additional five per cent discount for personal circumstances, bringing the sentence to 23 months. This made home detention a viable alternative. Considering the time already served, the final sentence is seven months of home detention.

The appeal is allowed. The original sentence is set aside and replaced with a sentence of seven months’ home detention, subject to the conditions as set out in the pre-sentence report.

Orders