White v Police - [2025] NZHC 2060

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-130 CRI-2025-409-131

CRI-2025-409-132 [2025] NZHC 2060

BETWEEN
JAYDEN ANDREW WHITE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 24 July 2025

Appearances:

R A Peters for Appellant

M W Fulton for Respondent

Judgment:

25 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 July 2025 at 12 noon, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

WHITE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2060 [25 July 2025]

Introduction

[1] Jayden White (age 30) appeals a sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Crosbie on 11 April 2025 for the following charges:1

(a)shoplifts under $500;2

(b)shoplifts between $500–$1,000 (x 9);3

(c)shoplifts over $1,000 (x 3);4

(d)theft (over $1,000);5

(e)attempted theft over $1,000;6

(f)possession of a knife in a public place;7

(g)burglary;8

(h)escaping custody;9 and

(i)possessing drug utensils (x 2).10

[2] Mr White appeals out of time with the explanation he was initially unable to find a lawyer. The delay is short, and the respondent is not prejudiced. Accordingly, I allow the extension of time to hear the appeal.

1      Police v White [2025] NZDC 7991.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d)—maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(c)—maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(b)—maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(b)—maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act, ss 219, 223(b) and 72—maximum penalty three and a half years’ imprisonment.
7      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 13A—maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $2,000 fine.
8      Crimes Act, s 231(1)(a)—maximum penalty ten years’ imprisonment.
9      Crimes Act, s 120(1)(c)—maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
10     Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and subs (3)—maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment or $500 fine.

Facts

[3] On 20 May 2024, Mr White, armed with a small steel mallet, entered a Christchurch shopping centre. Mr White approached a storefront window of a Pascoes Jewellery Store containing a display of valuable jewellery. Mr White twice forcefully struck the safety glass window with the mallet causing it to crack. He dropped the mallet and punched the window several times to gain access to the cabinet in an attempt to steal two rings, valued at approximately $8,000 each.

[4] Members of the public intervened, preventing Mr White from stealing the jewellery before chasing him out of the mall.

[5] Mr White was subsequently arrested nearby, and police found a switch blade craft knife in his possession. Mr White admitted he brought the mallet with him from home to steal the two rings in the display window, and that he had no excuse to be in possession of a knife.

[6] On the afternoon of 25 June 2024 Mr White and his brother Jacob White removed a hire trailer from a service station. The trailer was being used for advertising, was the property of Summit Hire Limited and was…

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 White v Police

Details

AGLC: White v Police [2025] NZHC 2060
Case: [2025] NZHC 2060
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jayden White appeals against his sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment, imposed by Judge Crosbie on 11 April 2025 for multiple charges including shoplifting, theft, attempted theft, possession of a knife in a public place, burglary, escaping custody, and possessing drug utensils. Mr White argues that his sentence should have been more in alignment with that of his brother Jacob, who received eight months’ home detention. The appeal hinges on whether the disparity between the sentences of co-offenders is so marked that it leads to a conclusion that something went wrong with the administration of justice. Mr Peters, for the appellant, argues that the differences in their offending and personal circumstances do not warrant such a significant difference in sentencing. Ms Fulton, for the respondent, contends that the Judge was correct in adopting a higher starting point for Mr White due to the seriousness of his separate offences and his additional offending while on bail.

The Court considers the starting point and deductions applied by the Judge to both Mr White and Jacob. While Mr White received higher percentage reductions for his guilty plea and addiction, Jacob received a 10 per cent deduction for previous good character. The Court notes that Mr White's persistent offending spanned some eight months, which does not entitle him to a deduction for prior good character. The Court also considers the three-month uplift applied for offending on bail, which it deems warranted given Mr White’s additional offending after receiving a sentence indication. Despite the disparity in end sentences, the Court concludes that Mr White’s sentence was commensurate with his offending. The differences in the brothers' offending and personal circumstances justify the higher starting point and additional uplift applied to Mr White’s sentence. The Court finds that Mr White’s sentence was not manifestly excessive and does not raise concerns over the administration of justice.

The extension of time to hear the appeal is allowed. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders