Tania Cresswell has had her sentence of imprisonment overturned. Photo / NZME
Tania Cresswell has had her sentence of imprisonment overturned. Photo / NZME
A jealous lover who hit her partner around the head with a piece of wood and then torched his home will no longer serve the prison time she was sentenced to and the reparation she was ordered to pay him has also been significantly slashed.
Taranaki’s Tania Cresswell, who also uses the surname Watene, was jailed for three years and six months and instructed to pay $150,000 to Tony Oxenham, who she had been in a relationship with for about eight years.
But Cresswell, a 58-year-old meatworker, has avoided stepping foot into a prison cell because immediately after her sentencing last August, she indicated she would launch an appeal and was released on bail.
Following a series of High Court appeal-related hearings held between October 2022 and March this year, Justice Andru Isac has released his ruling.
The decision, which was reissued yesterday, largely agreed with the sentence handed down by Judge Gregory Hikaka but found there had since been a material change of circumstances.
Accordingly, her jail term was replaced with 12 months of home detention and the reparation owed was reduced to $30,000.
Cresswell was sentenced following her January 15, 2021, offending which saw her strike Oxenham with a piece of timber and then set fire to his house.
What remained of Tony Oxenham's newly renovated home was bulldozed following the fire. Photo / NZME
The blaze destroyed his newly renovated Waitara home, leaving him $165,000 out of pocket.
Cresswell was drunk and had become jealous when Oxenham received a text from another woman. She lashed out, it was heard at her judge-alone trial.
While she immediately pleaded guilty to arson, she defended the assault with a weapon charge and was ultimately found guilty. Her sentence covered the assault, arson and an unrelated charge of drink driving.
At her appeal, defence lawyer Andrew Laurenson argued the five-year starting point adopted by Judge Hikaka was too high, inadequate discounts were provided for personal circumstances, remorse and previous good character, and that the order for reparation was excessive.
Laurenson submitted Cresswell’s offending was less serious than other arsons and no premeditation was involved.
On behalf of the Crown, prosecutor Holly Bullock accepted the reparation order was excessive. It was calculated that if Cresswell were to pay $100 per week for her remaining years in employment, the reparation amount would total around $33,000.
Further, Bullock noted a reparation report provided to the court did not outline whether Cresswell would be able to make payments while in prison.
However, it was submitted reparation remained appropriate regardless of whether a term of imprisonment was imposed.
In his determination of the appeal, Justice Isac said, like Judge Hikaka, the aggravating factors in the case were the use of significant violence, the extent of the damage caused by the fire and the burns it caused to Oxenham, the risk of danger the fire posed to others, and the retribution involved.
“Although no doubt driven by drunken jealousy, there was an element of cruelty in the arson,” Justice Isac said.
The justice found Judge Hikaka had appropriately set the starting point and was right not to give credit for factors raised in a cultural report or any further reduction for Cresswell’s previous good character.
But while Justice Isac agreed that at the time of sentencing, Judge Hikaka was correct not to make an allowance for remorse, in light of Cresswell’s subsequent conduct - particularly the payment of reparation - he found she had demonstrated genuine remorse that warranted a discount.
“In conclusion, I am not satisfied that there has been an error in the approach taken by the sentencing Judge.
“However ... I consider that there has been a change of circumstances after sentencing which requires me to consider afresh the appropriate sentence.”
Justice Isac found the reparation order imposed was “manifestly excessive” and said it was in the interests of Oxenham and the community to keep Cresswell in employment so she can continue to make payments.
Since her sentencing, she has made payments totalling $6900.
In allowing the appeal and resentencing Cresswell, he gave discounts for the payments made, remorse, her offer to continue paying reparation until retirement and her steps to address alcohol use.
“I consider that justice is best served by ensuring [Oxenham] receives amends for that harm rather than imprisoning the appellant for a significant proportion of her remaining working life.”
