Gatorade burglar has $20k reparation order quashed on appeal

The Court of Appeal ordered that a financial assessment be made of burglar Kelly Stewart's position to see how much reparation, if any, he can pay.

A man who was busted for a burglary after leaving his DNA on a bottle of Gatorade has had his reparation sentence quashed on appeal.

Kelly William Stewart was convicted of burglary after a trial in the Auckland District Court in January last year.

He was jailed for four years and four months and ordered to pay the reparation bill of $21,946.55 after stealing $15,000 of stock and causing nearly $7000 of damage when sawing his way in on November 1, 2014.

None of the stolen stock was recovered.

Stewart was identified as the burglar after his DNA was found on a bottle of Gatorade he had opened, drunk, and then left at the scene.

Through his lawyer John Mather, Stewart appealed the reparation order on the grounds it was manifestly excessive.

At his sentencing in February 2017, Stewart said he wished to pay reparation, but didn't have the money at the time, however he had a "number of business ventures with which he has approached investors".

A probation report was concerned about the likelihood of reimbursement through that method.

He also had $6496.17 owing in fines.

Stewart asked for an adjournment so that he could sell off personal items, but that was declined by District Court Judge Robert Ronayne who went ahead with sentencing.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal noted that Stewart's current financial position was not known and no submissions were made by his counsel, Mather, as to how much, if anything, he could contribute towards it.

However, there was some information available which suggested Stewart "holds at least some assets which might be sold to pay a part of the reparation total that
has been ordered".

No reparation report had been prepared for the sentencing, it stated in its findings.

"Some further information and insight into his financial circumstances is clearly necessary.

"It is appropriate here to remit the matter back to the District Court so that this issue of reparation can be determined afresh.

"Obviously the first step the District Court will have to take is to consider the
reparation report we are ordering under s33 of the act."