[1] Mathew Tyler (at the time of offending aged 29) was sentenced by Judge Robinson having been convicted on six vehicle-related charges and six other charges to two years and nine months’ imprisonment (the Decision).1 That sentence was imposed on two burglary charges (one being representative). Shorter sentences were imposed on most of the other charges. An outstanding sentence of 60 hours’ community work was cancelled. The Judge remitted $4,953 in fines.

[2] Mr Tyler appeals the sentence on two grounds: the starting points adopted for two discrete sets of charges were too high, and uplifts for offending on bail and previous convictions were too high.

1 Police v Tyler [2025] NZDC 8156.

TYLER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1806 [2 July 2025]

Facts

[3] I refer to the two sets of charges as “the vehicle-related charges” and “the other charges”. I will summarise the facts relating to each set.

The vehicle-related charges

[4]Mr Tyler was sentenced for:

(a)unlawfully taking a motor vehicle;2

(b)driving while his licence was suspended (3rd or subsequent) (three offences, being his third, fourth and fifth such offences);3

(c)failing to stop when followed by red/blue flashing lights;4 and

(d)dangerous driving.5

[5] In July 2019, Mr Tyler had been disqualified from driving for a period of nine months. In January 2021, he had been disqualified for a further six months.

[6] On 31 October 2023, Mr Tyler had been suspended from driving any motor vehicle until 30 January 2024 due to excess demerit points.

[7] On 3 November 2023 (three days after he was suspended), Mr Tyler was driving, and was stopped at a routine traffic stop. Police found he had been suspended from driving for a period of three months from 31 October.

[8] On 5 November 2023, Mr Tyler unlawfully took a motor vehicle in Tauranga. That night he drove the vehicle, giving rise to another charge of driving while his licence was suspended. Police activated blue/red flashing lights and sirens in an attempt to signal it to stop, but Mr Tyler fled from police. Mr Tyler drove at excessive

2      Crimes Act 1961, s 226(1); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(c) and 32(4); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or
$6,000 fine.
4      Land Transport Act, ss 52A(1)(a)(ii) and 114(2); maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
5      Land Transport Act, s 35(1)(b); maximum penalty three months imprisonment or $4,500 fine.

speed down narrow residential streets lined with cars in an attempt to evade police. He drove straight towards a police car, swerving at the last second to avoid a collision.

[9] On 16 December 2023, Mr Tyler was the driver of his father’s vehicle in…

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 Tyler v Police

Details

AGLC: Tyler v Police [2025] NZHC 1806
Case: [2025] NZHC 1806
Decision Date: 2 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mathew Tyler appeals his sentence, arguing the starting points and uplifts applied were too high. Tyler was convicted of vehicle-related charges and other charges, including burglary and driving while licence suspended. The appeal focuses on the starting points for the burglary and driving charges, as well as the uplift for offending while on bail and prior convictions. The High Court found the starting points and uplifts were appropriate and dismissed the appeal.

The starting points for the burglary and driving charges were within an acceptable range. The burglaries, while not involving residents, involved significant premeditation and multiple entries. The starting point of 24 months for the burglaries was justified by the aggravating features. For the driving charges, a starting point of 12 months was appropriate given the additional charges of failing to stop and dangerous driving.

The 10 per cent uplift for offending on bail and prior convictions was also justified. The Court found an uplift for prior convictions was appropriate, as Tyler had a history of property-related offending. The 10 per cent uplift was within an acceptable range, particularly given the offending occurred while Tyler was on bail.

The Court held that the overall sentence of two years and nine months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed as the sentence fell within an acceptable range given the offending.

Orders