Legal Research
Cases
Urlich v Police

Urlich v Police

Case [2025] NZHC 897 16 April 2025

Breach of Contract

Sentencing

Limitation Periods

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000590

[2025] NZHC 897

BETWEEN
SCHILO KEITH URLICH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 8 April 2025

Appearances:

E Mahoney for Appellant

M McKenzie and W Fotherby for Respondent

Judgment:

16 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDERSON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 April 2025 at 12.00 pm.

……………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland

URLICH v POLICE [2025] NZHC 897 [16 April 2025]

Introduction

[1] Schilo Keith Urlich pleaded guilty to 11 charges, almost all of which were for dishonesty offending.

[2] On 25 September 2024, Mr Urlich was sentenced by Judge Dawson to 25 months and two weeks’ imprisonment.1 Mr Urlich appeals on the basis this was manifestly excessive while the Crown counters that this sentence was within the available range.2

[3]The charges Mr Urlich was sentenced upon are as follows:

(a)One charge of burglary;3

(b)Two charges of theft over $1,000;4

(c)Two charges of theft between $500 and $1,000;5

(d)Five charges of theft under $500;6 and

(e)One charge of breach conditions of intensive supervision.7

Offending

Burglary

[4] On 29 August 2023, between 10 am and 11 am, Mr Urlich entered a Shamrock Park home and searched various rooms. The victim came home and a short confrontation ensued. The next day, about 7.30 am, Mr Urlich and an associate returned to the same address and used a crowbar to pry open a window, breaking the

1      New Zealand Police v Urlich [2024] NZDC 23573 [Judgment under appeal].
2      Mr Urlich does not pursue seeking a commutation of his sentence to an electronically monitored sentence.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 231. Maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 219 and 223(b). Maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
5      Sections 219 and 223(c). Maximum penalty of one year of imprisonment.
6      Sections 219 and 223(d). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
7      Sentencing Act 2002, s 70A. Maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding
$1500.

lock, and entered the dwelling. Mr Urlich went through several rooms and took a diamond ring (estimated value $500), a credit card, and two silver medallions (with an estimated value of $200 each). The property was found on him during arrest.

Thefts

[5] On 27 November 2022, Mr Urlich went to Rebel Sport in Wairau Park. He left the store wearing a hat and a jacket that he had selected from within but had not paid for.

[6] On 26 February 2023, Mr Urlich went to a Life Pharmacy in Takapuna. He picked up a fragrance and concealed it in his jacket before leaving the store without paying.

[7] On 9 March 2023, Mr Urlich went to Lacklands in Penrose with an associate. The pair took nine items of value including binoculars, thermal binoculars, and a tripod mount. Mr Urlich concealed these items before leaving the store without paying. The items had a combined value of $3,701.75. He returned to the…

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 Urlich v Police

Details

AGLC: Urlich v Police [2025] NZHC 897
Case: [2025] NZHC 897
Decision Date: 16 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Schilo Keith Urlich appeals against his sentence of 25 months and two weeks' imprisonment, imposed for various dishonesty offences, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Crown contends that the sentence was appropriate and within the available range. The court's task was to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The starting point for the lead offence of burglary was determined to be 22 months' imprisonment, with an eight-month uplift for the other thefts, and a four-month uplift for Mr Urlich's criminal history, resulting in a total starting point of 34 months' imprisonment. A 20% reduction for guilty pleas and a 5% reduction for addiction and cultural issues resulted in a final sentence of 25.5 months.

The court found that the starting point for the burglary was appropriate, considering the circumstances of the offence, including the risk of confrontation and the fact that the offender returned to the property the next day to commit the burglary. The court also found that the uplift for the remaining dishonesty charges was appropriate, as supported by comparative cases. While the court acknowledged that the discount for Mr Urlich's addiction could be viewed as light, the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive, particularly as no uplift was imposed for offending while subject to a sentence. The appeal is dismissed.

No specific orders were made, as the appeal was dismissed.

Orders