Sykes v Police - [2025] NZHC 2958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2025-442-18

[2025] NZHC 2958

BETWEEN
DARREN JOHN SYKES

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 25 September 2025

Appearances:

K Hennessy for Appellant

J W Cameron for Respondent

Judgment:

8 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] Mr Sykes was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment on charges of shoplifting,1 disqualified driving,2 trespass3 and breach of bail4. He appeals against sentence on the basis that the Judge failed to consider granting him leave to apply for the sentence to be converted to home detention.

The offending

[2] Mr Sykes has a long history of offending dating back to 1993. He also has a long history of substance use problems that he addressed in 2010 through residential treatment, leading to eight years of sobriety. However, he recommenced drinking

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(4). Maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or a fine of $6,000.
3      Trespass Act 1980, s 4(4) and 11(2)(a). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine of $1,000.
4      Bail Act 2000, s 24. Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine of $1,000.

SYKES v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2958 [8 October 2025]

alcohol and using methamphetamine. An alcohol and drug report writer has said that alcohol and methamphetamine use have kept Mr Sykes in a cycle of offending.

[3] Mr Sykes’ 10 shoplifting charges arose from him entering local Nelson supermarkets, a homeware store and a sporting store and taking various items between January and May 2025. The reparation amounts sought total $2,820.

[4] The three trespass charges relate to local supermarkets. On 7 May 2023 and 30 August 2024, Mr Sykes was served a trespass notice from two different supermarkets in Nelson. On three separate dates in early March 2025, Mr Sykes entered the supermarkets without authority and stole grocery items.

[5] Mr Sykes was indefinitely disqualified from driving on16 July 2018. However, in January 2024, Mr Sykes drove three times—giving rise to three charges of driving while disqualified. In each instance there were no aggravating factors to the driving charges.

The decision under appeal

[6] The Judge outlined Mr Sykes’ offending and noted that it occurred against a background of a significant offending history, and that the current charges are “a continuation of similar conduct”.5 The Judge referred to the contents of the pre- sentence report that “oscillates between proposing that a sentence of [home detention] be imposed … and that imprisonment is the most appropriate outcome” due to the appellant’s history of non-compliance.6 He noted the driver of Mr Sykes’ offending is drug dependency which “of course … you suggest you are done with”.7 Later the Judge says he has considered the alcohol and drug report which stated that after a period of sobriety, alcohol and methamphetamine use again featured prominently in Mr Sykes’ life and ultimately led…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sykes v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2958
Decision Date: 8 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sykes v Police involved an appeal by Mr Darren John Sykes against his 18-month imprisonment sentence. The appeal focused on the sentencing judge's refusal to consider granting him leave to apply for his sentence to be converted to home detention. The offender had a lengthy history of criminal activity and substance abuse issues, including 32 convictions for shoplifting, theft, burglary, and driving while disqualified. Despite periods of sobriety, Mr Sykes had relapsed into alcohol and methamphetamine use, leading to his recent charges of shoplifting, disqualified driving, trespass, and breach of bail.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in refusing to grant leave for Mr Sykes to apply for home detention. Counsel for Mr Sykes argued that the pre-sentence report and alcohol and drug report indicated that Mr Sykes needed community care for his addiction, and that a fair outcome would have been to grant leave to apply for home detention. Counsel for the police submitted that imprisonment was the only appropriate outcome due to Mr Sykes' recidivist offending history and risk of reoffending.

The court found that while the sentencing judge did not explicitly refer to section 80I of the Criminal Procedure Act, the substance of the provision was considered. The court held that the judge concluded that imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence due to Mr Sykes' significant history of non-compliance with previous sentences and high risk of reoffending. The court found no error in the judge's conclusion that the only realistic sentencing option was imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed.

In summary, the court determined that the sentencing judge properly considered the appropriate sentencing options and concluded that imprisonment was the only realistic option for Mr Sykes, given his lengthy history of offending and failure to comply with previous community-based sentences. The court found no error in the judge's refusal to grant leave for Mr Sykes to apply for home detention.

Orders