Toman v Police - [2025] NZHC 2254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CRI-2025-485-24

[2025] NZHC 2254

BETWEEN
ISZIC IHAKA TOMAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 9 July 2025

Appearances:

C J Nicholls for Appellant

A A Cox and V E Squires for Respondent

Judgment:

11 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] Mr Toman was sentenced on 9 May 2025 at the Hutt Valley District Court, following the entry of guilty pleas, in relation to the following eight charges:1

(a)burglary;2

(b)dishonestly entering a vehicle;3

(c)possessing a Class A controlled drug, namely methamphetamine;4

(d)possessing methamphetamine utensils;5

1      Police v Toman [2025] NZDC 10297.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a): maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 226(2): maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and subs (2): maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or a $1,000 fine.
5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and subs (3): maximum penalty one year imprisonment or a $500 fine.

TOMAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2254 [11 August 2025]

(e)theft of petrol;6

(f)careless driving;7

(g)possessing a Class C controlled drug, namely cannabis;8 and

(h)failing, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a condition of a sentence of supervision.9

[2] Mr Toman was sentenced to 17 months’ imprisonment. Leave was reserved for Mr Toman to apply to commute his sentence to home detention under s 80I of the Sentencing Act 2002. He now appeals against the sentence on the basis it is manifestly excessive because the starting point for the burglary was too high. Mr Toman says that, in the absence of a suitable address for an electronic monitoring (EM) sentence, community work and supervision was the appropriate sentence.

[3] The Crown opposes the appeal, submitting that the starting point for the burglary charge was within range and the end sentence is not manifestly excessive. The Crown accepts that an EM sentence would have been the optimal outcome. However, where there is no suitable EM address, and a community-based sentence would not meet the purposes and principles of sentencing, a short-term sentence of imprisonment was appropriate.

[4]For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.

The offending

Petrol theft

[5] On 27 March 2024, Mr Toman drove a vehicle to a petrol station in Lower Hutt and put $90.39 worth of petrol into the vehicle and left the service station without paying.

6      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d): maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
7      Land Transport Act 1998, s 37(1): maximum penalty $3,000 fine.
8      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and subs (2): maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $500 fine.
9      Sentencing Act 2002, s 70(a): maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $1,000 fine.

Dishonestly entering a vehicle

[6] In the early hours of 22 March 2024, an unknown offender broke into a car dealership in Lower Hutt and stole keys to a Mazda Demio worth $8,990. The offender entered 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 Toman v Police

Details

AGLC: Toman v Police [2025] NZHC 2254
Case: [2025] NZHC 2254
Decision Date: 11 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Toman appeals against the sentence imposed by the Hutt Valley District Court following his guilty pleas to eight charges. The Crown opposes the appeal, submitting that the sentence was within the appropriate range. The appeal raises issues of whether the starting point for the burglary was too high, and whether a different sentence should have been imposed. The court held that the starting point for the burglary was within range and the end sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld.

The appeal was against the sentence imposed by the Hutt Valley District Court, which was 17 months’ imprisonment with standard and special release conditions for six months after the sentence expiry date. Mr Toman argued that the starting point for the burglary was too high, and that a sentence of community work and supervision would have been more appropriate. The Crown argued that the starting point was within range and the sentence was appropriate given Mr Toman’s recent non-compliance with his sentence of supervision. The starting point for the burglary was 20 months’ imprisonment, which was within range given the aggravating factors. The court held that the starting point was appropriate and that the sentence imposed was within range. The court also held that the sentence of imprisonment was appropriate given Mr Toman’s recent non-compliance with his sentence of supervision. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders