[1] John Utiera pleaded guilty to one charge of theft between $500 and $1,000,1 12 charges of theft under $500,2 and one charge of failing to answer District Court bail.3 He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on those charges in the District Court at Napier on 2 May 2025.4

[2] Mr Utiera now appeals against that decision on the basis that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Crown opposes the appeal and submits that, while the end sentence and its component parts were undoubtedly stern, the outcome was appropriate in the circumstances.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(c) — maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(d) — maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
3      Bail Act 2000, s 38(a) — maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment, or $2,000 fine.
4      New Zealand Police v Utiera [2025] NZDC 9878 [judgment under appeal].

UTIERA v R [2025] NZHC 2162 [4 August 2025]

Background

The offending

[3] The offending, which was carried out during the period from December 2024 to March 2025, involved a series of low-level thefts, mainly by Mr Utiera filling his car at petrol stations and leaving without paying, but also some shoplifting offending. Mr Ryan, for Mr Utiera, confirmed that the Crown’s summary of the offending accurately outlined the factual basis for the resulting charges, as follows:

Date
Charge

CRN

ending

Description of Offending

18 Dec 2024 Theft (under $500) 0930
Stole $80.74 of petrol from BP Bay View Napier by filling his car and driving

away without paying.

23 Dec 2024 Theft (under $500) 0564
The appellant entered the Warehouse in Palmerston

North with a female associate, together they loaded the trolley with 34 items (total value

$819.48) and exited the store. They were confronted outside and all items were recovered.

The amount attributed to the appellant’s share is $409.75.

(“the Warehouse offending”)

10 Jan 2025 Theft (under $500) 1170 Stole $87.68 of petrol from Z Havelock North by filling his car and driving away without paying.

27 Jan 2025 Theft (under $500) 0530 Stole $152.46 of petrol from Z Tauhara, Taupo by filling his car and driving away without paying.

28 Jan 2025

Theft (under $500)

0860

Stole $128.73 of petrol from

Z Gisborne by filling his car and driving away without paying.

13 Feb

2025
Theft (under $500) 1172
Stole $101.48 of petrol from Mobil Waipukurau by filling his car and driving away

without paying.

14 Feb

2025
Theft (under $500) 0861
Stole $121 of petrol from Z Gisborne by filling his car and driving away without

paying.

15 Feb

2025
Theft (under $500) 0862
Entered Rebel Sports in Gisborne at around…

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 Utiera v The King

Details

AGLC: Utiera v The King [2025] NZHC 2162
Case: [2025] NZHC 2162
Decision Date: 4 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

John Utiera appealed against the sentence of two years’ imprisonment imposed on him in the District Court, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Crown opposed the appeal, contending that while the sentence was stern, it was appropriate given the circumstances. The High Court found that the starting points for the charges were excessive, particularly for the theft charges under $500, and that the cumulative approach taken by the District Court was inconsistent with established case law. The Court also found that the uplifts for the charge of failing to answer bail, the uplift for previous convictions, and the discount for guilty pleas were inappropriate. The Court concluded that the overall starting point should have been 12 months, and after applying the totality adjustment and guilty plea discount, the sentence should have been approximately 14 and a half months’ imprisonment. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of two years’ imprisonment was set aside, to be replaced with a sentence of 14 and a half months’ imprisonment.

Orders