Adams v Police - [2025] NZHC 600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-418-2

[2025] NZHC 600

BETWEEN
NORTON LINDSAY ADAMS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 19 March 2025

Appearances:

J M Lucas for Appellant

S A Teki-Clark for Respondent

Judgment:

21 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] Norton Adams was sentenced to nine months imprisonment by Judge O’Driscoll in the Greymouth District Court1 on 18 charges, namely:

(a)10 charges of theft (under $500);2

(b)Three charges of possession of cannabis;3

(c)One charge of driving under the influence of cannabis;4

(d)One charge of dangerous driving;5

1      Police v Adams [2025] NZDC 854.
2      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2); maximum penalty three months imprisonment or
$500 fine
4      Land Transport Act, ss 57A(1)(a) and 57D(1); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or
$4,500 fine.
5      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $4,500 fine.

ADAMS v NZ POLICE [2025] NZHC 600 [21 March 2025]

(e)One charge of threatening behaviour;6 and

(f)Two charges of failing to answer bail.7

[2] Mr Adams appeals his sentence on the basis that the Judge erred in failing to consider sentencing options other than imprisonment, including a community-based sentence or leave to apply for home detention.

[3] The Police oppose the appeal on the grounds the Judge provided sufficient and compelling reasons why a less restrictive sentence was not appropriate.

[4]For the reasons below, the appeal is dismissed.

The offending

[5] The 18 charges arise from the period of 21 September 2024 to 28 December 2024. There are seven instances of shoplifting pertaining to stealing meat and other items from supermarkets and energy drinks from petrol stations, totalling $484.98 of stolen products. The remaining theft relates to stealing petrol from petrol stations totalling $181 and, on one occasion, the licence plate off another vehicle (valued at $36). These events resulted in the theft charges.

[6] On 21 September 2024, Mr Adams was in Hokitika visiting his then girlfriend. After having stolen petrol and a licence plate as described above, he was stopped by Police, arrested, and a search of his vehicle yielded 25 grams of cannabis leaf and utensils. This resulted in one of the charges of possession of cannabis.

[7] On the afternoon of 7 October 2024, Mr Adams was driving in Greymouth. When spoken to by Police, Mr Adams displayed signs of being impaired and admitted to consuming cannabis. A compulsory impairment test found Mr Adams’ blood contained 5.8 nanograms of THC per litre of blood.8 This resulted in Mr Adams being charged with driving under the influence.

6      Summary Offences Act, s 21(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $2,000 fine.
7      Bail Act 2000 s 38(a); maximum imprisonment one year’s imprisonment or $2,000 fine; and Bail Act s 24; maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $1,000 fine.
8      The high-risk level is three nanograms per litre of…

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 Adams v Police

Details

AGLC: Adams v Police [2025] NZHC 600
Case: [2025] NZHC 600
Decision Date: 21 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Norton Adams was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment by Judge O’Driscoll in the Greymouth District Court on 18 charges. Mr Adams appeals his sentence on the basis that the Judge erred in failing to consider sentencing options other than imprisonment, including a community-based sentence or leave to apply for home detention. The Police oppose the appeal on the grounds the Judge provided sufficient and compelling reasons why a less restrictive sentence was not appropriate. For the reasons below, the appeal is dismissed.

Mr Lucas submits that the Judge erred in not considering the alternative sentencing options to imprisonment, namely a community-based sentence such as intensive supervision or leave to apply for home detention. He submits that a sentence of imprisonment should be a last resort in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act. Mr Teki-Clerk submits that no errors were made by the sentencing Judge. He says nine months was an appropriate sentence given the volume and range of offending, even if most of the offences bear a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.

I consider that the end sentence was within range. I accept Mr Adams’ genuine desire to be involved in his son’s life, but there is simply insufficient information available to support a discount in this regard. I accept Mr Lucas’ submission that the fact Mr Adams has previously served a sentence of imprisonment does not automatically mean imprisonment was the only sentencing option available to the Judge. However, I do not consider that this was a determinative factor for the Judge in deciding to impose a sentence of imprisonment instead of an alternative sentence. The Judge noted Mr Adams had a history of non-compliance, including breaches of release conditions, escaping custody, failing to answer bail, and breaching supervision. The Judge also noted that Mr Adams has previously not taken advantage of rehabilitative opportunities available to him.

Taking into consideration his offending history, his rehabilitative needs and his current circumstances, a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate in the circumstances. While Mr Lucas favours the grant of leave to apply for home detention, I consider that the Judge did not err in considering a sentence of imprisonment was the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances.

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders