Stephen v Police - [2025] NZHC 1294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-409-280 [2025] NZHC 1294

BETWEEN
ALEXIS JOSEPHINE STEPHEN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 1 May 2025

Appearances:

O K Jarvis and H L Beaven for Appellant K N Stitely for Respondent

Judgment:

22 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 May 2024 at 4 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

STEPHEN v POLICE [2025] NZHC 1294 [22 May 2025]

[1] After pleading guilty in the Christchurch District Court to charges of theft of a dwelling for an amount over $1,000,1 and of using a document for pecuniary advantage,2 Alexis Stephen applied to be discharged without conviction.3 Judge Orchard declined that application, and sentenced Ms Stephen to 200 hours’ community work on the theft charge, and imposed reparation in the sum of $375 on the charge of using a document for pecuniary advantage.4

[2] Ms Stephen appeals the refusal to discharge her without conviction. She alleges the Judge erred in assessing the gravity of her offending and its consequences. As a result, it is submitted the Court erroneously found those consequences were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.5

Facts

[3] Ms Stephen was granted access by her mother, Jacqueline Just, to her house for the purpose of tending her garden and caring for some pet guinea pigs while Ms Just was away for a week’s camping.

[4] During this period, Ms Stephen accessed her mother’s jewellery box. She stole three diamond rings and a gold chain worth some $17,000. Ms Stephen also allowed a male and female associate to enter Ms Just’s home. They stole a further 12 items of jewellery worth $21,042. Additionally, the male stole an electric bike worth $1,800. In total, property worth $39,946 was stolen.

[5] During the same period, Ms Stephen went to a pawn shop where she signed two pawn loan agreements. By signing those documents, Ms Stephen represented she was the owner of two of the stolen jewellery items that she exchanged for $375. Those items have since been recovered. However, the other jewellery and electric bike have not.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(b)—maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, s 228(1)(b)—maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 106.
4      Police v Stephen [2024] NZDC 27535.
5      Sentencing Act, s 107.

[6] Ms Just was compensated for her loss by her insurance company. She did not seek reparation in relation to her payment of the excess.

[7] It was an accepted fact that Ms Stephen, at the time of her offending, was suffering from an addiction.

District Court decision

[8] The Judge categorised the gravity of the offending as being moderately serious due to the gross breach of trust, both in terms of Ms Stephen having stolen family jewels from her mother at a time when she…

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 Stephen v Police

Details

AGLC: Stephen v Police [2025] NZHC 1294
Case: [2025] NZHC 1294
Decision Date: 22 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alexis Josephine Stephen appeals against the Christchurch District Court’s refusal to grant her a discharge without conviction for theft and using a document for pecuniary advantage. She contends the District Court Judge erred in assessing the gravity of her offending and the consequences of a conviction. In particular, Ms Stephen submits that the consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of her offending.

Mander J found the District Court Judge correctly categorised the gravity of the offending as moderate. While Ms Stephen’s personal circumstances, including her addiction, were relevant to the assessment of the offending, they did not alter the nature of the offending or Ms Stephen’s culpability. The Judge also correctly assessed the consequences of a conviction as being ordinary and not disproportionate to the gravity of the offending. Ms Stephen’s addiction did not alter the consequences of her convictions in terms of the effect on her employment prospects.

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders