[1] Mr Jesse Tudor pleaded guilty to breaching a protection order, wilful damage of a dwelling house, and breach of release conditions. He was sentenced by Judge A I M Tompkins on 19 April 2024 to two years and three months’ imprisonment.1

[2] Mr Tudor now appeals his sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive. He says that no starting point was identified, that no uplifts for criminal history or previous offending could have possibly resulted in an end sentence so high, and that the two-step methodology in Moses v R was not followed.2

The facts

[3] Mr Tudor is the adult son of the victim. On 20 October 2020, a Final Protection Order was issued by the Hamilton District Court in respect of an application in which Mr Tudor was the respondent and the victim was the applicant.

[4] On 29 October 2023 at about 9.55 pm the appellant arrived at the victim’s address in Hamilton where he damaged the exterior weatherboards,3 before texting the victim telling her to call him. When the victim called, Mr Tudor yelled at her asking where her tobacco was and threatening further damage to the house. He swore at the victim multiple times and called her a liar, before inflicting further damage and leaving the property.

[5] The breach of release conditions charge relates to a failure by Mr Tudor to report to his probation officer on 22 November 2023.

District Court decision

[6] Mr Tudor first came before Judge Tompkins for sentence on 18 March 2024. There was no final pre-sentence report (that is a pre-sentence report with appendices)

1      Police v Tudor [2024] NZDC 8770.
2      Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, [2020] 3 NZLR 583.
3      Giving rise to the wilful damage charge.

available as Mr Tudor had, in direct terms, told the interviewing probation officer that he would not participate. The report that was before the Court (without Mr Tudor’s input) indicated that he had a high-risk of re-offending and a high-risk of harm to others. It was noted that he had little regard for community-based sentences and it was readily apparent to the Judge that the full range of sentencing responses available to the Court had been imposed since Mr Tudor’s first appearance in 2010 and had been of no deterrent value whatsoever.

[7] The Judge also had before him a detailed victim impact statement from the victim. She advised that for…

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Tudor v The King [2024] NZHC 1960
Case: [2024] NZHC 1960
Decision Date: 16 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Jesse Michael Tudor appealed against his sentence for breaching a protection order, wilful damage of a dwelling house, and breach of release conditions. Tudor was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment by Judge A I M Tompkins. Tudor's appeal focused on the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Tudor's counsel argued that no starting point was identified, no uplifts for criminal history or previous offending could have resulted in such a high sentence, and the two-step methodology in Moses v R was not followed. The court considered the circumstances of the case, including Tudor's extensive criminal history, ongoing violence toward family members, and methamphetamine addiction. The District Court Judge had attempted to mitigate the risk of further offending and advance Tudor’s rehabilitative prospects by imposing a sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment without reference to a starting point, uplifts, or discounts. The High Court conducted its own orthodox sentencing exercise, considering a starting point of 10 months’ imprisonment for the breach of the protection order, an uplift of two months for the wilful damage charge, and an uplift of 20 per cent for offending while on release conditions. The court also applied a 25 per cent discount for Tudor's guilty pleas. Based on this orthodox approach, the court determined that a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate. The difference between the sentence imposed by the District Court and the sentence calculated by the High Court was 11 months, which the High Court found to be excessive. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the sentence was substituted with one year and four months’ imprisonment, with special release conditions that Tudor attend an assessment for alcohol and drug treatment and not associate with his mother without prior written approval from a probation officer.

Orders