Tritt v The King - [2025] NZHC 1868

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2025-419-000038

[2025] NZHC 1868

BETWEEN
RYAN DAVID TRITT

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 9 July 2025

Appearances:

G D Prentice for Appellant K Dillon for Respondent

Judgment:

9 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 9 July 2025 at 3.00 pm
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
G D Prentice, Barrister, Hamilton
Hamilton Legal, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

TRITT v R [2025] NZHC 1868 [9 July 2025]

[1] Mr Tritt pleaded guilty in the District Court to two charges of burglary,1 one charge of dishonestly using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage2 and one charge of breaching a sentence of community work.3 On 17 March 2025,
Judge N D Cocurullo sentenced Mr Tritt to two years 11 months’ imprisonment.4

[2] Mr Tritt appeals against sentence. He contends the Judge adopted a starting point on the lead burglary charge was too high and that the uplift applied to reflect the remaining charges was also too high. He contends that these errors have resulted in a sentence that is manifestly excessive.

The offending

[3] The first burglary charge was laid as a result of an incident that occurred in the early hours of 23 July 2024. At 5.30 am on that date, Mr Tritt entered the garage of a residential property in Thames and searched for items to steal. He stole a bicycle having an approximate value of $400.

[4] Two weeks later, in the early hours of 4 August 2024, Mr Tritt burgled another residential address in Thames. On this occasion he stole items having a total value of just under $17,000. A DNA profile extracted from items left at the scene established that Mr Tritt was the person who had burgled the property.

[5] The charge of dishonestly using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage was laid after Mr Tritt used a stolen credit card on 6 July 2024 to purchase items having a total value of approximately $102 from a grocery store.

[6] The charge of breaching a sentence of community work was laid after Mr Tritt failed to complete a sentence of 50 hours’ community work that was imposed on 29 March 2022 on a charge of shoplifting.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a).
2      Section 228(1)(b).
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 71.
4      Police v Tritt [2025] NZDC 6454.

The sentence

[7] The Judge took the second burglary as the lead, or most serious, charge. It occurred at a residential address during evening hours and property having a significant value had been stolen. The Judge selected a starting point of two and a half years’ imprisonment on that charge.5 He then applied an uplift of nine months to reflect the charge relating to the theft of the bicycle.6

[8] For the remaining two charges, the Judge added an uplift of three months to reach an end…

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 Tritt v The King

Details

AGLC: Tritt v The King [2025] NZHC 1868
Case: [2025] NZHC 1868
Decision Date: 9 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Tritt, appealed against his sentence in the High Court of New Zealand, arguing that the starting point and uplift applied by the District Court were excessive. Mr Tritt pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary, one charge of dishonestly using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage, and one charge of breaching a sentence of community work. The District Court sentenced him to two years and eleven months' imprisonment. Mr Tritt contended that the starting point for the lead burglary charge was too high and the uplift for the remaining charges was excessive, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence.

The court examined the starting point for the lead burglary charge and the uplift for the remaining charges. The court found that the starting point of two years and six months for the lead burglary charge was appropriate, given the aggravating factors such as the time of the burglary and the significant value of the stolen property. However, the court agreed that the uplift for the remaining charges was too high, as the other charges were relatively minor. The court determined that an uplift of no more than eight months was justified. The court also found that the discount for guilty pleas was appropriate, but it accepted the Crown's submission that an uplift for the recent offending was justified.

The court concluded that the end sentence of two years and eleven months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The court dismissed the appeal against sentence.

Orders