Turner v Police - [2025] NZHC 3134

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2025-442-021

[2025] NZHC 3134

BETWEEN
JOSHUA DEAN TURNER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 16 October 2025

Appearances:

S J Zindel and M A Gauler for Appellant J A L Lao for Respondent

Judgment:

21 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Appeal against sentence)

Introduction

[1] Joshua Turner was convicted on one charge of theft over $1,000,1 one charge of causing loss by deception over $1,000,2 and two charges of obtaining by deception between $500 and $1,000.3 He was sentenced in the District Court at Nelson on 26 August 2025 to six months’ home detention, with six months’ post-detention conditions.4 He was also ordered to pay reparations of $9,350 and $3,760.30.

[2] Mr Turner appeals against his sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive and there was an error in the summary of facts to which he pleaded guilty.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(b) — maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, ss 240(1)(d) and 241(a) — maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, ss 240(1)(a) and 241(b) — maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.
4      Police v Turner [2025] NZDC 21968 [judgment under appeal].

TURNER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 3134 [21 October 2025]

Background

[3] The background to the offending, as set out in the police summary of facts, is summarised below.

Theft

[4] On 11 June 2024, Mr Turner signed a 12-month agreement with a company for the lease of a portable cabin, valued at $34,500, for weekly payments of $107.10. The cabin was delivered, however by 2 August 2024, Mr Turner’s account was in arrears of $428.40 due to missed payments. On 15 August 2024, the hire company contacted Mr Turner advising him that the contract had been terminated effective immediately, and that the cabin would be collected the following week.

Causing loss by deception

[5] On 12 September 2024, Mr Turner advertised the cabin for sale on Facebook Marketplace for $5,000. Mr Turner had no authority to sell the cabin, as it belonged to the hire company.

[6] The victim messaged Mr Turner enquiring about the cabin, and after negotiations a price of $8,000 was agreed upon. She made an initial payment of
$4,000 that day to Mr Turner’s bank account. The following day, Mr Turner messaged the victim requesting the remaining $4,000, stating that his vehicle had broken down and he needed the money. She transferred the requested amount and asked for the location of the cabin for collection.

Obtaining by deception (x2)

[7] Mr Turner advised the victim that the cabin was being stored at an address in Kaiapoi. The victim responded that she was unable to collect it from the property, and Mr Turner said he could have the cabin moved to an area on the street at a cost of
$600, due to fees of the company he would use. On 20 September 2024, the victim…

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 Turner v Police

Details

AGLC: Turner v Police [2025] NZHC 3134
Case: [2025] NZHC 3134
Decision Date: 21 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshua Turner appeals against his sentence for theft, causing loss by deception, and two counts of obtaining by deception, arguing it was manifestly excessive and that there was an error in the summary of facts. The appeal focuses on whether the sentence of six months’ home detention, with six months’ post-detention conditions and reparation orders, was manifestly excessive and whether there was an error in the summary of facts.

The court considers whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it erred in the summary of facts. The court finds that the starting point of 16 months’ imprisonment was within the range suggested by Mr Turner’s counsel and was appropriate given the seriousness of the offending. However, the court found that a sentence of home detention was not the least restrictive outcome available and was manifestly excessive, particularly as it prevented Mr Turner from obtaining employment through his temping agency. The court replaces the sentence with one of six months’ community detention, with a daily curfew of 10.00 pm until 5.00 am.

The court dismisses the appeal concerning the summary of facts, finding that it would amount to an appeal against conviction and would not make a substantial difference to the overall sentence. The court also does not interfere with the time limit for reparation imposed by the Judge, given the adjustment made to Mr Turner’s sentence.

The appeal is allowed. The sentence of six months’ home detention is set aside and a sentence of six months’ community detention is imposed.

Orders