Weatherall v The King - [2025] NZHC 2257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CRI-2025-476-10

[2025] NZHC 2257

BETWEEN
RODGER ALAN WEATHERALL

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 31 July 2025

Appearances:

C J Lange for Appellant N Girgis for Respondent

Judgment:

11 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J

Introduction

[1] The appellant appeals against a sentence of two years and 10 months' imprisonment imposed by Judge C D Savage in the District Court at Timaru on 11 December 20241 for charges of ill-treatment of a child2 and assault on a child (representative).3 The victim of the appellant's offending was, at the time, a two-year- old girl who was very slight for her age. She was the daughter of the appellant's then partner and they had been in a relationship living together since July 2022.

[2] The appellant submits the Judge erred in his sentencing methodology which resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence. He contends that separate starting points

1      R v Weatherall [2024] NZDC 31060.
2      Charge 1 Crown Charge List dated 18 September 2024, Crimes Act 1961, s 195 - maximum penalty 10 years' imprisonment.
3      Charge 14 Crown Charge List dated 18 September 2024, Crimes Act 1961, s 194(1) - maximum penalty two years' imprisonment.

WEATHERALL v R [2025] NZHC 2257 [11 August 2025]

for each charge should have been adopted, with an adjustment for totality made thereafter.

[3] The Crown submits that, although there may have been error in the Judge's sentencing methodology, the end sentence was within the range available to him and therefore the appeal ought to be dismissed.

[4] The appeal was filed out of time. The reasons for the delay are outlined in an affidavit filed by the appellant in support of an application for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. The Crown does not oppose the application for leave. The reasons for the delay are satisfactorily explained. I grant the extension sought.

[5] I have decided to allow the appeal. This judgment sets out my reasons for doing so.

The charges

[6] On 18 May 2023, a number of charges were laid against the appellant in the Timaru District Court, all against the same young victim. They included a charge of injuring with intent to injure on 25 January 2023 at Timaru, ill-treatment of a child (jointly charged with the appellant’s then partner) on 4 August 2022 at Timaru and a number of charges of assault on a child alleged to have occurred on 4 August 2022 at Dunedin and 20 September 2022 at Timaru.

[7] On 6 June 2023, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and elected to be tried by a judge alone. At some point, the Crown took over responsibility for the charges. A Crown Charge Amendment Notice was filed on 5 September 2023 which removed the injuring with intent to injure charges and included one charge of ill- treatment of a child, seven representative and five non-representative…

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 Weatherall v The King

Details

AGLC: Weatherall v The King [2025] NZHC 2257
Case: [2025] NZHC 2257
Decision Date: 11 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Rodger Alan Weatherall appeals against the sentence of two years and 10 months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court for charges of ill-treatment of a child and assault on a child. The victim, a two-year-old girl, was subjected to systematic neglect and abuse over a six-month period. The appellant contends that the District Court judge erred in adopting a global starting point for sentencing, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence.

The legal issues revolve around the appropriate starting point for sentencing and whether the District Court judge erred in his sentencing methodology. The Crown argues that, despite potential error in the sentencing methodology, the sentence was within the permissible range and should not be disturbed. The appellant argues that separate starting points for each charge should have been adopted, with an adjustment for totality made thereafter.

The High Court judges that the District Court judge's approach to sentencing was unorthodox. The facts of the case were not articulated, and there was no analysis of the factors or rationale for adopting a three-year starting point. The court considers a starting point of 12 months' imprisonment for the ill-treatment charge and one year, nine months' imprisonment for the assault charge. Taking into account the five per cent discount for the guilty plea, the end sentence should be two years and seven months' imprisonment, which is less than the District Court sentence of two years and 10 months.

The appeal is allowed, and the sentence is quashed. In its place, the High Court imposes a sentence of two years and seven months' imprisonment, divided between the assault on a child charge and the ill-treatment of a child charge.

Orders