Legal Research
Cases
Andree v Police

Andree v Police

Case [2025] NZHC 2932 6 October 2025

Protection of the Community

Rehabilitation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-441

[2025] NZHC 2932

BETWEEN
NICHOLAS SAMUEL ANDREE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 15 September 2025

Appearances:

A S Bloem and B A Osborne for Appellant R V E Cowley for Respondent

Judgment:

6 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 October 2025 at 4 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

…………………………………

Solicitors/Counsel:
Bloem Law, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Auckland

ANDREE v POLICE [2025] NZHC 2932 [6 October 2025]

[1] This is an appeal against the sentencing decision of Judge K J Glubb in the North Shore District Court on 18 July 2025.1

[2] Mr Andree pleaded guilty to one charge of excess breath alcohol (third or subsequent)2 and two charges of driving while disqualified (third or subsequent).3

[3] On the charge of excess breath alcohol, and considering an appropriate overall sentence taking into account the remaining two charges of driving while disqualified, the Judge imposed an end sentence of imprisonment for a term of 22 months, with standard and special post-release conditions for a period of a further six months.4 Mr Andree was disqualified from driving indefinitely under s 65 of the Land Transport Act 1998.5 The Judge also made orders that he be subject to a zero-alcohol licence when he becomes eligible for that.6 The Judge declined to grant leave to convert the sentence of imprisonment to home detention.7

[4]The appellant submits the sentence was manifestly excessive because:

(a)the starting point was too high; and

(b)the Judge failed to implement a totality reduction pursuant to s 85 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

[5] Furthermore, the appellant contends that Mr Andree should have been sentenced to home detention.

[6]The respondent opposes the appeal on the basis that:

(a)the sentence was within range; and

1      Police v Andree [2025] NZDC 16551 [judgment under appeal].
2      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 56(2) and 56(4). The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment,
$6,000 fine and disqualification from holding a driver’s licence for more than one year.
3      Sections 32(1)(b) and 32(4). The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment, $6,000 fine and disqualification from holding a driver’s licence for one year or more.
4      Judgment under appeal, above n 1, at [36] and [39].
5 At [37].
6 At [38].
7 At [36].

(b)an end sentence of imprisonment rather than home detention was appropriate given the circumstances.

Legal principles

[7] The Court must allow an appeal against sentence if it is satisfied that there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed.8 Generally, the sentence must be shown to be manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.9 The focus is on the end sentence imposed, rather than the process by which it is reached.10

[8] The claim that a sentence is manifestly excessive (or inadequate) is inevitably premised on the contention of prior error, which may include questions…

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 Andree v Police

Details

AGLC: Andree v Police [2025] NZHC 2932
Case: [2025] NZHC 2932
Decision Date: 6 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nicholas Samuel Andree appealed against his sentence, imposed by Judge K J Glubb in the North Shore District Court on 18 July 2025, for one charge of excess breath alcohol (third or subsequent) and two charges of driving while disqualified (third or subsequent). The Judge imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 22 months, with standard and special post-release conditions for a period of a further six months. Mr Andree was disqualified from driving indefinitely under s 65 of the Land Transport Act 1998. The Judge declined to grant leave to convert the sentence of imprisonment to home detention. The appellant submits the sentence was manifestly excessive because the starting point was too high and the Judge failed to implement a totality reduction. Furthermore, the appellant contends that Mr Andree should have been sentenced to home detention. The respondent opposes the appeal on the basis that the sentence was within range and that an end sentence of imprisonment rather than home detention was appropriate given the circumstances. The Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, and that the Judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing in imposing the sentence of imprisonment. The Court dismissed the appeal.

Orders