Tudor v Police - [2025] NZHC 2275

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-129

[2025] NZHC 2275

BETWEEN
HAYDEN MATHEW TUDOR

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 7 August 2025

Appearances:

B S T Moore for Appellant G L Collett for Respondent

Judgment:

12 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 August 2025 at 3 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

TUDOR v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2275 [12 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] Hayden Tudor pleaded guilty on four charges of assault with intent to injure1 and one charge of assault on a child.2 On 20 May 2025, he was sentenced by Judge Orchard to 19 months and two weeks’ imprisonment.3 Mr Tudor now appeals that sentence on the ground the Judge erred by not granting leave to Mr Tudor to apply for home detention to a residential rehabilitation programme and the end sentence was resultingly manifestly excessive.

Facts

[2] The appellant was sentenced on violence charges committed against his partner, which also included an assault on her son when he tried to stop the assault on his mother. The charges arose from events on 12 March 2025, with the assaults on his partner including pulling her by the hair, punching her repeatedly in the head and stomach and pushing her head into a brick wall. The charge against his partner’s child involved pulling him by his hair and slapping him once in the face with an open hand.

District Court decision

[3] The Judge considered there were significant aggravating features of the offending, including that the offending took place in the victim’s home; that it was a sustained and very serious assault, which focussed on the victim’s head; that it occurred in front of her two children; and that the appellant pursued the victim when she fled, and tried to dissuade her from phoning the police.

[4] A starting point of 24 months imprisonment was adopted, with a two-month uplift for his previous history of violence. A 25 per cent credit was allowed for the early guilty plea. No further credit was extended, with the Judge rejecting the submission that credit ought to be allowed for a preparedness to attend rehabilitation.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 193; maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 194(a); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
3      Police v Tudor [2025] NZDC 11186.

[5] While there were conflicting findings between the pre-sentence report and the Alcohol and Drug report (AOD report), the Judge preferred the pre-sentence report, noting “[t]he report writer … is an independent professional and the Courts are entitled to accept what they say as being accurate.”4 The Judge accepted that despite his expressed regret for the way he had behaved, that had “not translated into any positive move to address [his] offending attitude and sense of entitlement”.5 The Judge was also critical of Mr Tudor’s statement to the pre-sentence report writer that…

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 Tudor v Police

Details

AGLC: Tudor v Police [2025] NZHC 2275
Case: [2025] NZHC 2275
Decision Date: 12 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hayden Tudor appeals against his sentence of 19 months and two weeks’ imprisonment, imposed by Judge Orchard for four charges of assault with intent to injure and one charge of assault on a child. Tudor contends the Judge erred by not granting leave for him to apply for home detention to a residential rehabilitation programme, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. The key legal issue before the Court was whether the Judge erred in not granting leave for Tudor to apply for home detention under s 80I of the Sentencing Act 2002. The Court found that while there was no suitable residence available at the time of sentencing, this was not the reason for declining leave. The Judge concluded that if Tudor's desire to rehabilitate was sincere, then it could be addressed after the completion of his sentence. The Judge also imposed all the special conditions recommended in the pre-sentence report, including attendance at an alcohol and drug treatment programme. The Court found that the Judge gave sufficient regard to the sentencing purposes of rehabilitation and reintegration while acknowledging the history and seriousness of Tudor’s family violence offending. The Court therefore did not find the Judge erred in not granting leave for Tudor to apply for home detention. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders