Topper v The King - [2025] NZHC 3055

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2025-483-36

[2025] NZHC 3055

BETWEEN
MORGANA TOPFER

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 14 October 2025

Appearances:

R J Leith for Appellant

K D Turner for Respondent

Judgment:

15 October 2025

Reissued:

21 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Sentence appeal]

Introduction

[1] Ms Morgana Topfer was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment by Judge Wiltens for aggravated burglary and two driving-related charges.1 She now appeals sentence saying the adopted starting point was too high and insufficient credit was given for addiction and rehabilitative prospects.

1 R v Topfer [2025] NZDC 18822 [Sentencing notes]. Aggravated burglary, Crimes Act 1961, s 232(1)(a). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment. Driving while disqualified, Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(4). Maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment, $6,000 fine. Failing to stop, Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52A(1)(a)(ii) and 114(2). Maximum penalty $10,000 fine.

TOPFER v R [2025] NZHC 3055 [15 October 2025]

The offending

[2] Ms Topfer had an argument with her mother over the use of her mother’s vehicle. She left home walking the streets looking for a car to steal. She was carrying a backpack containing a number of kitchen utensils, including a large kitchen knife.

[3] The appellant then noticed the victim’s vehicle parked on the street and that a window of the victim’s house had been partially left open. She took the knife from her backpack and climbed through the open window. She then confronted the victim— who had fallen asleep in her lounge—with the knife, demanding the keys to the victim’s car and telling her not to call the police. The victim retrieved her keys from the kitchen and handed them over. As the appellant left, she took a hammer from the address and drove off in the victim’s vehicle. The victim was very frightened by what had occurred but not physically injured.

[4] Ms Topfer subsequently picked up two friends and drove them back to Whanganui. On the way she was signalled to stop by Police but accelerated in an attempt to evade arrest, stopping only when her friends urged her to do so.

Impact on victim

[5] A brief but moving victim impact statement sets out the harm caused by the offending. The victim is 63 years of age and the sole caregiver for her husband, who is unwell. She was awoken in her living room by the appellant brandishing a knife and yelling at her. She had been attacked in the 1980s while living in Australia and the offending has brought back her memories of that earlier trauma.

The appellant’s background

[6] The appellant is 32 years old, of Te Whānau-ā-Apanui iwi. She has a five-year-old son, who is currently in the custody of her ex-partner, but she had regular contact with him before she was imprisoned. Their relationship is described by the appellant’s mother as a very good one.

[7] Ms Topfer has 15 previous convictions and…

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 Topper v The King

Details

AGLC: Topper v The King [2025] NZHC 3055
Case: [2025] NZHC 3055
Decision Date: 15 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was asked to review Ms Morgana Topfer's sentence for aggravated burglary and two driving-related charges. Ms Topfer, who had a history of drug and alcohol use, committed these crimes while under the influence of drugs. The lower court sentenced her to 27 months in prison. Ms Topfer appealed, arguing that the starting point for her sentence was too high and that not enough credit was given for her addiction and rehabilitative prospects. The court had to decide if the starting point for sentencing was appropriate and if enough credit was given for personal mitigating factors.

The court considered several factors when deciding the appropriate starting point for sentencing. The court found that the starting point of three and a half years was too high, as Ms Topfer's crime did not have the same aggravating features as other cases with similar starting points. The court found that a starting point of two years to two years and six months would have been more appropriate. The court also considered personal mitigating factors, such as Ms Topfer's addiction and the impact of her imprisonment on her young child. The court found that enough credit was not given for these factors and that an additional discount of 15% was warranted.

Based on the court's reasoning, the sentence imposed by the lower court was set aside. In its place, Ms Topfer was sentenced to two months of home detention on the charge of aggravated burglary and was discharged on the driving charges given time served. The court believed that a community-based sentence focused on Ms Topfer's rehabilitation was the least restrictive sentencing outcome required in the circumstances.

Orders