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 starting point of 42 months’ imprisonment.7 He declined to adjust that sentence to reflect totality principles.8 The Judge then applied an uplift of 10 per cent to reflect the fact that Mr Tritt has several previous convictions for similar offending.9

[9]        Turning to mitigating factors, the Judge applied a discount of seven months to reflect guilty pleas. He did this by setting off the uplift of ten per cent to reflect previous convictions for similar offending against the discount of 25 per cent to reflect guilty pleas.10 This produced the end sentence of two years 11 months’ imprisonment. The Judge imposed this sentence on the second burglary charge and imposed concurrent sentences on the remaining charges.11

The appeal

[10]      As I have already noted, Mr Tritt advances his appeal on the basis that the Judge adopted a starting point on the lead burglary charge that was too high. He also contends that the uplift the Judge applied to reflect the remaining charges was excessive.

The starting point on the lead burglary charge

[11]      As Mr Prentice acknowledges on Mr Tritt’s behalf, there is no tariff or guideline judgment of the higher appellate courts to assist in the selection of starting

5 At [7].

6 At [8].

7 At [8].

8 At [8].

9 At [8].

10 At [9].

11     At [10]–[14].

points for the charge of burglary. However, the Judge referred to Arahanga v R, an authority that is often cited in the present context.12 In that case the Court of Appeal noted that dwelling house burglaries at the minor end of the scale tend to attract a starting point of approximately of 18 months to two years six months’ imprisonment.13

[12]      Mr Prentice has cited several authorities in support of his submission that the starting point of two years six months in the present case was excessive.14 The Crown has done likewise to support its submission that the starting point was well within the available range.15 However, other sentencing authorities are of limited assistance in the present context because the factual circumstances of cases involving burglary charges are inevitably different.

[13]      In the present case, the aggravating features of the offending were, as the Judge noted, that the burglary was of a dwelling house at night when the occupants could be expected to be present and vulnerable. A significant quantity of property was stolen. Further, the victim impact statement records that the offending had a very significant impact on the owner of the address because she was forced to return to New Zealand from overseas to deal with the damage Mr Tritt caused to her property. Having regard to those factors, I do not consider the starting point the Judge selected can be regarded as outside the range referred to in Arahanga.

The uplift for the remaining charges

[14]      Mr Prentice contends that, on a stand-alone basis, the second burglary charge would not warrant an uplift of more than 12 months’ imprisonment. Having regard to totality principles, he contends that an uplift of no more than eight months was justified for this charge and the other two charges.

[15]      I agree that the uplift applied in relation to the first burglary charge was too high given the fact that it did not involve the burglary of the dwelling itself, only the garage, and property of relatively low value was taken. The other two charges were

12     Arahanga v R [2012] NZCA 480, [2013] 1 NZLR 189.

13 At [78].

14     Simon v Police [2020] NZHC 2430; Stepanicic v R [2015] NZCA 211.

15     Rangi v Police [2023] NZHC 3617.

also relatively minor. I therefore accept Mr Prentice’s submission that an overall uplift of no more than eight months was required to reflect the remaining three charges.

[16]      This means a starting point on all charges of no more than three years two months’ imprisonment was justified. An uplift of ten per cent, or four months, to reflect previous convictions would increase this to three years six months.

[17]      I do not accept the Crown’s submission that the Judge applied an overly generous discount to reflect guilty pleas. The most serious charges were those relating to the two burglaries. Mr Tritt entered guilty pleas to the first burglary charge just two weeks after his first appearance on that charge. He also entered a guilty plea to the second burglary charge at the first available opportunity.  I consider a discount of  ten months, or 25 per cent, was therefore appropriate even though the evidence against Mr Tritt may have been strong. The guilty plea on the lead charge saved the complainant the added trauma of having to give evidence at trial. This means that, after taking into account the discount for guilty pleas, the end sentence would be two years eight months’ imprisonment rather than two years eleven months as the Judge found was appropriate.

[18]      For the Crown, Mr Dillon does not accept that an end sentence of two years eleven months would be manifestly excessive. He points out that the Judge could have added a further uplift of around ten per cent to reflect the fact that Mr Tritt committed the present burglaries a very short time after being sentenced to intensive supervision for breaching a sentence of seven months home detention imposed on a raft of charges on 11 December 2023. These included two charges of burglary as well as charges of escaping from police custody, failing to answer District Court bail and being in possession of methamphetamine utensils.

[19]      I accept the Crown’s submission on this issue. It is a matter of obvious concern that Mr Tritt was prepared to go out and commit two further burglaries so soon after being sentenced to intensive supervision. The Judge could easily have applied an uplift of three months to reflect this factor. For this reason, I am satisfied the end sentence of two years eleven months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

Result

[20]The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Lang J