Legal Research
Cases
Trego v Police

Trego v Police

Case [2024] NZHC 3796 13 December 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000631

[2024] NZHC 3796

BETWEEN
DAETYN TREGO

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 December 2024

Counsel:

DWE Dowsett for Appellant CSA Jordan for Respondent

Judgment:

13 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 13 December 2024 at 10 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland.
Public Defence Service, Waitākere.

TREGO v POLICE [2024] NZHC 3796 [13 December 2024]

The appeal

[1] Daetyn Trego received a 29-month sentence of imprisonment for unlawfully possessing a loaded firearm and unlawfully using two motorcars.1 Mr Trego appeals that sentence. The appeal must be allowed if there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence is warranted.2 The ultimate concern is whether the sentence is manifestly excessive.3

Background

[2]Little detail is required.

[3] On 20 January 2024, Mr Trego drove a Ford motorcar stolen on 4 January 2024. On 27 February 2024, hence approximately a month later, Mr Trego drove a second stolen vehicle, a Mercedes Benz. Later that day, Police found Mr Trego in the car at a service station. A search revealed a loaded, sawn-off shotgun in the footwell of the front passenger’s seat. Mr Trego exercised his right to silence.

[4] All three charges were laid that month. Mr Trego later pleaded guilty. He was sentenced 11 October 2024.

[5] Judge T Singh adopted a starting point of two years and three months’ imprisonment for the firearms offending. The Judge added 12 months’ imprisonment for the two offences of unlawful use of a motorcar, producing a global starting point of three years and three months’ imprisonment. The Judge then applied a series of discounts:

(a)20 percent for the guilty pleas.

(b)10 percent for personal mitigating factors.

(c)A total of 10 percent for rehabilitative efforts and apparent willingness to engage in restorative justice.

1      R v Trego [2024] NZDC 25102.
2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
3      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482.

[6] The Judge then added six months (or 15 percent of the global starting point) because the offending occurred while Mr Trego was subject to release conditions from prison, and in recognition of Mr Trego’s criminal history. More particularly, Mr Trego unlawfully possessed a firearm in March 2023. That offence resulted in a one-year term of imprisonment and the release conditions in question.

A précis of the case for Mr Trego

[7] On behalf of Mr Trego, Mr Dowsett contends the sentence is manifestly excessive. He argues each of the (two) starting points was too high, as was the 15 percent uplift. Mr Dowsett also contends the Judge should have deducted five percent as Mr Trego has a two-year-old daughter and his partner is pregnant with their second child.

Analysis

The starting point for the firearms offence

[8]Mr Dowsett offers three arguments here:

(a)The Judge erred in taking into account an aggravated robbery conviction…

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 Trego v Police

Details

AGLC: Trego v Police [2024] NZHC 3796
Case: [2024] NZHC 3796
Decision Date: 13 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daetyn Trego appealed against his 29-month sentence for possessing a loaded firearm and unlawfully using two motorcars. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The background revealed that Mr Trego had driven two stolen vehicles and was caught with a loaded shotgun. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced after a series of discounts and an uplift. Mr Dowsett, representing Mr Trego, argued the starting points were too high and the uplift was excessive, while also contending that a discount for the presence of children should have been applied. The Court examined the starting points for both offences, the uplift, and the consideration of children. The Court found that the starting points were within the appropriate range, and the uplift was justified given Mr Trego’s criminal history and the need for denunciation. The Court also held that no discount for children was warranted as Mr Trego had not demonstrated remorse or shown steps toward rehabilitation related to his children.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed as the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the gravity of the offences. The reasoning underscored the importance of proportionality in sentencing and highlighted the need for courts to carefully balance various sentencing factors to ensure just outcomes.

Orders