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 fitted with a GPS tracking device. That evening police received information on the location of the trailer through the GPS monitoring. The next day, police located the trailer at Mr White’s home address with a different registration plate attached and the advertising removed. The value of the trailer was $3,500. Reparation of $917.74 was sought to repair damage.

[7]    Between 12 July and 29 August 2024 Mr White committed 13 shoplifting offences. Nine of these were with his brother Jacob White (age 26). When offending together, Mr White and his brother would take items from retail stores (including clothes, power tools and other goods) and run out through the emergency exit doors where the other brother would be waiting in a car to drive away with the stolen goods. The total value of shoplifted goods under the 13 charges is $13,531.19.

[8]    Mr White pleaded guilty  to  these  charges  and  was  remanded  on  bail  on 7 October 2024. At approximately 7.33 am on 30 January 2025, Mr White and a

co-offender11 entered a Christchurch “Cash for Cars” premises. Mr White picked up two wheels with tyres fitted and his co-offender picked up one wheel with a tyre fitted. Both defendants left the premises with the wheels and ran around the corner before loading them into a vehicle and driving away. The wheels and tyres were valued together at $1,500. The victim of this offence has stated the burglary affected his workplace greatly, particularly highlighting the time it took to review the security footage.

[9]    On 1 February 2025, police arrived at Mr White’s bail address in a Christchurch suburb to arrest him over a previous breach of court bail on 4 January. Police knocked on the front door, Mr White came to the door and was advised he was under arrest. Mr White refused to accept he was under arrest, told police to talk to his mother and slammed the door. Mr White exited out a window from the other side of the house and left the property.

[10]   Police made several attempts to locate Mr White in the following days but were unable to find him. At about 8.30 pm on 8 February 2025 police went to Mr White’s address and located him hiding under a bed in his mother’s bedroom.

[11]   Police also located a glass bong for cannabis consumption and two glass pipes for methamphetamine consumption in Mr White’s bedroom.

District Court decision

[12]   Mr White received a sentencing indication from  Judge Crosbie on the first  16 offences on 7 October 2024.12 The Judge fixed an overall starting point, including for offending while on bail, of two years and six months’ imprisonment.13 The Judge indicated a guilty plea of 20 per cent would be appropriate and that home detention would be considered but subject to a positive report and address.14

11     Mr White identifies the co-offender as his brother, but Jacob White does not appear to be charged with this offence.

12     Police v White DC Christchurch CRI-2024-009-3382, 7 October 2024.

13 At [2].

14     At [3]–[4].

[13]   However, at sentencing where Mr White was facing the additional charges of burglary, escaping police custody and possession of drug utensils, the Judge remarked:15

[35]  … Mr White, when you did come before me you did not have the  worst track record and that is why we had a discussion that was an endeavour to come up with a sentence that would keep you out of prison. Your relevant history was really only in relation to driving. Now what we have got is spree offending of high value items, some of which could be looked at as things you might need to support yourself but, largely they were goods that had a value that you could on-sell to fund your meth addiction.

[14]   The Judge noted Mr White’s subsequent offending occurred while on bail and considered the sentence needed to deter Mr White and the community from this type of offending and promote Mr White’s rehabilitation.

[15]   The Judge canvassed Mr White’s methamphetamine addiction and its connection to his offending and acknowledged the programmes he had undertaken in custody.

[16]   The Judge considered the new offending alone (being the burglary, escaping custody and drug utensil charges) could warrant a starting point  between 15 to      18 months’ imprisonment but took a global starting point for all offences of 39 months’ imprisonment.16 This was an additional nine months on the sentence indication, which aligned with the uplift sought by the police on the new charges.

[17]   The Judge allowed a 22.5 per cent deduction for his guilty plea since Mr White had pleaded guilty  to  the  new  charges  promptly.  The  Judge  applied  a  further 15 per cent reduction for the connection between Mr White’s methamphetamine addiction and his offending. The Judge then considered a three-month uplift was appropriate to reflect the offending that occurred while Mr White was on bail (being 18 of the charges).

[18]   The end sentence was therefore two years’ and three months’ imprisonment. The Judge indicated Mr White would be eligible for a drug treatment programme while

15     Police v White, above n 1.

16 At [47].

in prison and recommended Mr White seek placement at a residential treatment facility once eligible for parole.17

[19]   The Judge set aside Mr White’s fines and ordered reparations at 50 per cent to reflect that much of the offending had been with his brother and imposed a two-year licence disqualification period.

Sentencing of Jacob White

[20]   Judge Crosbie sentenced Mr White’s brother Jacob18 on 20 May 2025.19 While most of the charges were for shoplifting committed with Mr White, he was also charged with failing to carry out search obligations and driving unaccompanied on a learner licence.

[21]   A starting point of 33 months was adopted. Jacob received total deductions of 40 per cent. This comprised a 17.5 per cent reduction for his guilty plea, 10 per cent for previous good record, and 12.5 per cent for addiction and personal circumstances. The Judge applied an uplift of two months for offending on bail (eight charges arose while Jacob was on bail).

[22]   The Judge also took off four and a half months for time spent in custody and on electronically monitored bail. The resulting 17 and a half months’ sentence of imprisonment was converted to an end sentence of eight months’ home detention.

Principles on appeal

[23]   Appeals against sentence are allowed as of right by s 244 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and must be determined in accordance with s 250. An appeal against sentence may be allowed by this Court only if it is satisfied that there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed.20 As the Court of Appeal commented in Tutakangahau v R, referencing the lower court’s decision, a “court will not intervene where the sentence is within the range that can

17     At [50]–[51].

18     I will refer to Mr White’s brother by his first name to avoid confusion with the appellant.

19     Police v White [2025] NZDC 12073.

20     Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 250(2) and 250(3).

properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles”.21 It is appropriate for this Court to intervene and substitute its own views only if the sentence being appealed is “manifestly excessive” and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles.22

Submissions

Appellant’s submissions

[24]   Mr Peters, for the appellant, submits as the primary ground of appeal  that  Mr White should have received a sentence more in alignment with that received by his younger brother, Jacob, under the parity principle. Mr Peters submits Jacob’s eight months’ home detention sentence is markedly different from Mr White’s sentence of imprisonment while the offending was largely similar.23

[25]   Mr Peters submits Mr  White  should  have  received  a  total  reduction  of  40 per cent like his brother (as opposed to 37.5 per cent) and that no uplift should have been applied for offending while on bail (Mr Peters submitted, incorrectly, that Jacob did not receive such an uplift). Mr Peters submits the circumstances of the brothers were similar, the main difference being Mr White is older. Mr Peters does not dispute the Judge was correct to account for Mr White’s escaping custody charge but submits it does not justify Mr White receiving a term of imprisonment while his brother was sentenced to home detention.

[26]   Mr Peters submits an appropriate sentence would be two years’ imprisonment with release conditions and leave to apply to home detention should a suitable placement for home detention be found, which is likely to be in a residential treatment facility. Mr Peters submits, given Mr White’s offending was addiction driven, this approach would best encourage Mr White’s rehabilitation.

Respondent’s submissions

[27]   Ms Fulton, for the respondent, submits Mr White’s sentence was appropriate and proportionate to his brother’s sentence. She submits the differences in their

21     Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36].

22     Ripia v R [2011] NZCA 101 at [15].

23     R v Lawson [1982] 2 NZLR 219 (CA) at 223.

offending and personal circumstances warrant a different sentencing outcome and the appeal should therefore be dismissed.

[28]   Ms Fulton notes the brothers shared fourteen charges (not all were committed together, but Jacob White also had further shoplifting, burglary and drug utensil charges). Ms Fulton submits Jacob’s four separate charges are significantly less serious than Mr White’s, noting Jacob’s separate offences carry maximum penalties of three months’ imprisonment (x 3) or a fine (x 1) whereas Mr White’s six separate offences carry maximum penalties of three months (x 1), one year (x 4) and five years’ (x 1) imprisonment. Ms Fulton submits this justifies the higher starting point adopted for Mr White.

[29]   Ms Fulton also submits the Judge was correct to apply a greater uplift for offending on bail for Mr White given he committed 18 offences whilst subject to bail and four of these were after  receiving  a  sentence  indication.  In  comparison,  Jacob White committed eight offences whilst subject to bail.

[30]   Mr White received greater deductions for his guilty pleas and addiction than his brother and Ms Fulton submits the 10 per cent deduction Jacob received for his previous good record was due to his age and the fact he had only one previous dangerous driving conviction. Ms Fulton submits the ten per cent reduction applied at Jacob’s sentencing was generous but leniency on one offender does not create an expectation the other will be dealt with in the same way.24

[31]   Ms Fulton lastly submits the Judge was correct in not allowing Mr White a deduction for time spent on bail, given the conditions were not overly restrictive and the fact he breached his bail conditions on one occasion in addition to offending while on bail.

Analysis

[32]   The general test for when disparity between the sentences of co-offenders will lead to a reduction in sentence on appeal is if the difference is so marked as to lead a

24     Kulu v R [2022] NZCA 284.

“reasonably minded independent observer aware of all the circumstances of the offence and of the offenders” to “think that something had gone wrong with the administration of justice”.25

[33]   I deal first with whether Mr White’s starting point of 39 months’ imprisonment was disproportionate to the 33 months’ imprisonment received by Jacob White. As highlighted by Ms Fulton, Mr White’s separate offences are more serious than his brother’s. The escaping custody charge is particularly concerning given Mr White evaded the police for a week.

[34]   In Ahokava v Police, the appellant had run away from police after being informed he was under arrest and was caught approximately 500 meters away.26 The appellate Court did not disturb the three-month uplift imposed on the lead charge of burglary and numerous shoplifting thefts. In Taylor v Police, the appellate Court considered one charge of escaping police custody along with five other charges for resisting police, failing to remain stopped and leaving a place of detainment “might justify a modest uplift of two months altogether …” on an already large sentence.27 In Bimler v Police this Court allowed an appeal where a nine-month uplift had been applied for escaping custody. The appellant was told he was under arrest and ran on foot through busy traffic before getting into a friend’s vehicle which then had to be flagged down by a police car with flashing lights and sirens.28 The Court determined a six-month uplift should have been given instead.29 In Gordon v Police the Court did not disturb a four-month uplift for escaping police custody.30

[35]   In light of these cases, and when considering the additional charges Mr White was sentenced on which his brother was not, I am not persuaded a six-month higher starting point was manifestly excessive.

[36]   I turn now to the deductions applied by the Judge to both Mr White and his brother. Although Mr White received higher percentage reductions for his guilty plea

25     R v Lawson [1982], above n 23, at 223.

26     Ahokava v Police [2024] NZHC 3946 at [41] and [52].

27     Taylor v Police [2024] NZHC 2880 at [52].

28     Bimler v Police [2023] NZHC 2661.

29 At [24].

30     Gordon v Police [2023] NZHC 2053.

and addiction, Jacob received a 10 per cent deduction for previous good character while Mr White did not.   This resulted in Jacob receiving 2.5 per cent more than   Mr White in total deductions. I agree with Ms Fulton that the Judge was generous to afford Jacob such a deduction given the timeframe for the spree of offending.

[37]   While the brothers’ criminal histories are similar, I do not consider Mr White is entitled to a deduction for prior good character given his persistent offending spanned some eight months. As the Court of Appeal has said: “[a] lenient or unusually merciful sentence extended to one offender cannot create an expectation other offenders will receive the same indulgence.”31

[38]   I consider the three-month uplift the Judge applied for offending on bail was warranted in the circumstances, particularly given Mr White’s additional offending after receiving a sentence indication. As Ms Fulton highlighted, Mr White committed ten more offences while on bail than his brother.

[39]   Despite the disparity in end sentences, the Judge took a principled approach to sentencing both brothers and was cognisant of the need for parity.32 Mr White had more charges, more serious offences and had committed more offences while on bail than his brother. These justified a higher starting point and an additional months’ uplift which lifted Mr White’s end sentence from being a short-term of imprisonment. While the conversion of Jacob’s sentence to home detention makes it look a significantly shorter sentence, it needs to be borne in mind that the length of home detention also took into account the time Jacob had spent remanded in custody prior to sentencing.33

[40]   In summary, I am not satisfied Mr White’s sentence was manifestly excessive and nor, given the differences between the two brothers’ offending, does it raise concerns over the administration of justice. Mr White’s sentence was commensurate to his offending.

31     Macfarlane v R [2012] NZCA 317 at [24], applied in Kulu v R, above n 24, at [34].

32     Police v White, above n 19, at [5].

33     Police v White, above n 1, at [50]–[51].

Result

[41]The extension of time to hear the appeal is allowed.

[42]The appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Christchurch

Copy to:
R A Peters, Barrister, Christchurch