Wright v Wilson-Wright - [2025] NZHC 2192

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-128

[2025] NZHC 2192

BETWEEN
KEEGAN WRIGHT

(also known as KEEGAN JAMES KANE WILSON-WRIGHT)

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 31 July 2025

Appearances:

E McElrea and P-F (C) Lee for the Appellant P J Brand for the Respondent

Judgment:

6 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J

Introduction

[1] The appellant appeals against a sentence of 27 months' imprisonment imposed in the Christchurch District Court by Judge Couch on 21 May 20251 in respect of charges of recklessly impeding breathing,2 assault on a person in a family relationship3 and two charges of contravening a protection order.4 He submits the starting point adopted by the Judge was too high and that the Judge ought to have allowed additional credit for background factors relevant to s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 but did not do so. In combination, the appellant submits this has led to a manifestly excessive sentence being imposed upon him.

1      Police v Wright [2025] NZDC 11246.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 189A(b)—maximum penalty seven years' imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, s 194A—maximum penalty two years' imprisonment.
4      Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(a) and (b), and 112(1)(a)—maximum penalty three years' imprisonment.

WRIGHT v POLICE [2025] NZHC 2192 [6 August 2025]

[2] The respondent opposes the appeal and submits the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

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

The facts

[4] The sentence relates to two separate incidents, both of which occurred between 23 September and 11 October 2024. The appellant and the victim in both sets of offending, at that time, had been in a on and off again relationship for the previous eight years. They have one child together.

[5] On 10 May 2023, the victim obtained a temporary protection order in her favour against the appellant. This was made final on 12 June 2023.

Offending on 23 September 2024

[6] On the evening of 22 September 2024, the appellant stayed with the victim at her house overnight with her consent. The following morning, 23 September 2024, at about 11.45 am, an argument developed between them about the care of the appellant's other child. The argument escalated and the appellant took the victim's phone from the lounge and hid it. When the victim noticed her phone was missing, she told the appellant she was leaving with their child. The appellant stopped the victim leaving the property by physically holding her back and standing in the way. The victim was holding their two year old child at the time. The appellant forcefully pushed her on her shoulders with two hands while she held onto the child and she fell to the floor on her back still holding the child.

[7] The appellant then attempted to pull the child from the victim while she was on the ground, it would appear unsuccessfully. The victim got up…

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 Wright v Wilson-Wright

Details

AGLC: Wright v Wilson-Wright [2025] NZHC 2192
Case: [2025] NZHC 2192
Decision Date: 6 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, presided over by Harland J, heard an appeal by Keegan Wright against a sentence imposed by the Christchurch District Court. The appellant was sentenced to 27 months imprisonment for charges of recklessly impeding breathing, assault on a person in a family relationship, and breaching a protection order. Wright argued that the starting point for his sentence was too high and that additional credit should have been given for his background, leading to an excessive sentence. The respondent opposed the appeal, maintaining that the sentence was justified. The court examined whether the starting point was appropriate, whether additional credit should have been given for mitigating factors, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the starting point for the sentence was indeed too high, and that a starting point of 37 months was more appropriate. The court also agreed that an additional discount should be applied for the appellant's background, resulting in a final sentence of 22 months imprisonment. The court concluded that the original sentence of 27 months was manifestly excessive and allowed the appeal. The court substituted the original sentence with a sentence of 22 months imprisonment and granted the appellant leave to apply for home detention.

The court's decision highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors, including the offender's background, when determining an appropriate sentence. The court also emphasised the need for consistency in sentencing, ensuring that similar offenders committing similar offences in similar circumstances receive appropriate sentences within a justifiable range. The decision also underscores the importance of balancing the purposes of deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation in sentencing.

Orders