In sentencing of residential burglaries, the standard case cited is the Court of Appeal decision of Arahanga v R [2012] NZCA 480, [2013] 1 NZLR 189 at [78] in which the Court held that starting points for residential burglaries (as distinct from, for instance, commercial burglaries) tend to be in the range of 18 to 30 months:

This Court has deliberately not set a tariff for burglary because the range of circumstances in which the offence can be committed is so varied. Burglary of a domestic residence is a significant aggravating factor at sentencing due to the heightened risk of confrontation with occupants. Dwelling house burglaries at the relatively minor end of the scale tend to attract a starting point of approximately 18 months to two years and six months imprisonment.

The 18-30 month range is routinely invoked at sentencing hearings as setting an effective floor of 18 months for dwellinghouse burglaries but a closer analysis is required.

In Newton v Police [2012] NZHC 2829, then-High Court Justice Kós, before his elevation to the Supreme Court in 2022 after a tenure as President of the Court of Appeal (2016-2022), made the following observations at [9]:

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Arahanga is not, as it says expressly, a tariff decision. Its observation was that dwellinghouse burglaries at the relatively minor end of the scale tend to attract a starting point of approximately 18 months to two years and six months’ imprisonment is observational rather than obligatory, of course. It must not be taken to set a fixed minimum sentence start point for dwellinghouse burglary.

In this case, the appellant was out driving with a friend one Monday morning when he stopped, entered a house and stole a television and some jewellery. The court nominated an appropriate starting point of 15 months on appeal (down from 24 months), noting the following mitigating features: first-time burglar, opportunistic offending without significant premeditation, daylight entry, single burglar, absence of risk to (absent) occupants, and limited impact on those occupants in fact.

In Nelson v Police [2019] NZHC 2434, the appellant had committed a burglary involving the forcing of a window and the shattering of an inside glass pane; their fingerprints were found on the interior side of the window. Justice Hinton cited Newton and considered further authorities concluding, contra Arahanga, that burglaries from unoccupied dwellings without premeditation and with a low value of goods taken justified starting points of well under 18 months. At [33]:

From the cases cited to me, and the cases referred to by Kós J in Newton, I conclude that the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Arahanga is not strictly accurate or has not strictly been applied. All these cases considered Arahanga and came to starting points of less than 18 months. A more realistic range might be one year to two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.

In that case, where it was unclear if the appellant had entered the building (beyond reaching an arm into a window) or taken anything, a starting point of 14 months was considered appropriate.

Starting points for burglaries from auxiliary residential buildings such as garages and sheds can be lower still. In Grey v Police [2023] NZHC 2065, a starting point of 12 months was nominated as appropriate for a burglary consisting of the use of a drill to open a lock on a shed at the rear of a residential property, taking four jerry cans and two small tins before leaving.