Whichman v The King - [2025] NZHC 1573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000008

[2025] NZHC 1573

BETWEEN
GEORGE WHICHMAN

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 6 May 2025

Appearances:

Appellant in person

S J Cox for Respondent

Judgment:

13 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 June 2025 at 3.30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker (Manukau) for Respondent
Copy to Appellant in person

WHICHMAN v R [2025] NZHC 1573 [13 June 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Whichman appeals his sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment imposed on him by Judge D J McNaughton on four charges: dishonestly using a document, using a false passport, failing to answer bail and possession of ecstasy.1 He submits that, having regard to comparator cases, the sentence is manifestly excessive.

[2] I must allow Mr Whichman’s appeal if there is an error in his sentence such that a different sentence should be imposed.2

The Judge’s decision

[3]I take the factual background from the Judge’s sentencing notes:

[2] In April last year you created an unverified RealMe account in your brother’s name, Rudolf Whichman and using his details you spoke to Customs Services purporting to be your brother and providing false details and gained access to the unverified RealMe account. In order to get the account verified you provided your brother’s birth certificate.

[3] Later that month you went to VTNZ to apply for a replacement driver’s licence. You presented the driver licence card of your brother and using those details filled in an application for replacement driver’s licence. The person who served you then took your photo. You paid for a new driver’s licence which now contained your photo, but your brother’s details.

[4] On 8 May you applied to verify his RealMe account and that was accepted. You then used that verified RealMe account to apply under urgency for a New Zealand passport in your brother’s name, again using your photograph. That application was successful and a passport was delivered to you. On that same day you were due to appear in court. Instead on 20 May you arrived at Auckland International Airport about to get on a flight to Rarotonga. You managed to get through the Customs smart gate and into the departures hall using your brother’s name and the false passport, but when you saw aviation security approaching, you took off.

[5] It was some months later before you were located and arrested and you had a small quantity of ecstasy, just two pills in your pocket. You have a fairly extensive criminal history which goes back to Youth Court appearances in 2005.

[4]The Judge had regard to the cases cited by the Crown and by Mr Whichman.3

1      R v Whichman [2024] NZDC 31899.
2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
3      R v Lum DC Manukau CRI-2011-092-5980, 19 August 2011; Farley v R [2017] NZCA 97; R v Kirkland [2006] HC Rotorua CRI-2006-092-8020, 3 August 2006;…

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 Whichman v The King

Details

AGLC: Whichman v The King [2025] NZHC 1573
Case: [2025] NZHC 1573
Decision Date: 13 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr George Whichman appeals his sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge D J McNaughton on four charges: dishonestly using a document, using a false passport, failing to answer bail, and possession of ecstasy. He submits that the sentence is manifestly excessive when compared to comparator cases. The court must determine if there is an error in the sentence warranting a different sentence to be imposed. The court must consider the factual background, the judge’s sentencing notes, and the comparator cases cited by both the Crown and Mr Whichman. The Judge adopted a starting point of two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, applying an uplift of two months to account for Mr Whichman’s criminal history. The court considered the comparator cases, which involved more severe offending than Mr Whichman’s case. The court found that the starting point of two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment was at the lowest end of the available range, and the uplift for Mr Whichman’s criminal history was light. The discount for early pleas of guilty was very generous, and the discount for remorse was acceptable. The court found that there is no error in the sentence such that a different sentence should be imposed, and the sentence is not manifestly excessive. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders