Bell v Police - [2025] NZHC 2881

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2025-425-000040

[2025] NZHC 2881

BETWEEN
ALLAN OTTO BELL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 September 2025

Appearances:

K L E Coote for Appellant

M B Brownlie for Respondent

Judgment:

1 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 October 2025 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

BELL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2881 [1 October 2025]

Introduction

[1] Allan Bell (aged 40) appeals a sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Walker in the Invercargill District Court on 8 August 20251 after he admitted charges of:

(a)Driving while disqualified (third or subsequent);2

(b)Failing to stop when followed by red and blue flashing lights (aggravated);3

(c)Reckless driving;4

(d)Wilful damage;5

(e)Possession of methamphetamine;6

(f)Possession of cannabis;7

(g)Possession of utensils for methamphetamine;8

(h)Breach of protection order (x 2);9

(i)Possession of cannabis for supply (x 5);10

(j)Supplying cannabis;11

1      Police v Bell [2025] NZDC 17990.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(4). Maximum penalty: two years’ imprisonment;
$6,000 fine.
3      Land Transport Act, ss 52A(1)(a)(ii), 52A(3), 52A(6) and 114(2). Maximum penalty: $10,000 fine.
4      Land Transport Act, s 35(1)(a). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment; $4,500 fine.
5      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment; $2,000 fine.
6      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2). Maximum penalty: six months’ imprisonment.
7      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 7(1)(a) and (2). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment.
8      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 13(1)(a) and (3). Maximum penalty: one year imprisonment.
9      Family Violence Act 2018, ss 98(1)(a) and 112(1)(b). Maximum penalty: three years’ imprisonment.
10     Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(f). Maximum penalty: eight years’ imprisonment
11     Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(e). Maximum penalty: eight years’ imprisonment.

(k)Possession of methamphetamine for supply (x 3);12

(l)Supplying methamphetamine (x 3);13

(m)Supplying stimulants and depressants;14 and

(n)Breaching a restraining order (x 5).15

Facts

[2] Mr Bell’s offending, which can be grouped into three tranches, is captured in full in the decision of Judge Walker:

[5]The facts in relation to the first set of offending is that a protection order was made against [Mr Bell] on 1 March 2017 and it was a condition of that order that [Mr Bell] not possess or have under [his] control any weapon.16

[6]On 26 November 2023, [Mr Bell was] the subject of court bail conditions not to drive a motor vehicle. On 10 February 2024, [Mr Bell] drove a motor vehicle … in Invercargill. [Mr Bell] admitted to being on a bail condition not to drive and [Mr Bell was] arrested for breach of bail. [Mr Bell’s] car was searched. In [Mr Bell’s] jacket pocket was a glasses case containing three clear plastic bags containing white crystalised powder. Also contained was a rolled up
$5 note and a glass pipe used for smoking methamphetamine. [Mr Bell’s]…

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 Bell v Police

Details

AGLC: Bell v Police [2025] NZHC 2881
Case: [2025] NZHC 2881
Decision Date: 1 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Allan Bell appeals against a sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Walker in the Invercargill District Court. The appeal focuses on four grounds: insufficient credit was given for Mr Bell's methamphetamine addiction, which was causative of his offending; a deduction should have been afforded for the 329 days that Mr Bell spent subject to restrictive bail conditions or the 55 days spent on electronically monitored bail; the two-month uplift imposed for the five breach of restraining order charges was excessive; and the end sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances and insufficient consideration was given to the need to provide a rehabilitative response. Ms Coote for Mr Bell argues that the Judge did not sufficiently recognise Mr Bell’s methamphetamine addiction, which was causative of his offending. She cites Zhang v R, highlighting that substance abuse and violence were recurring themes throughout Mr Bell’s upbringing, and that a credit of 30 per cent or more is appropriate. Mr Brownlie for the Crown opposes the appeal, submitting that there is no error in the sentence imposed.

In terms of insufficient credit for addiction, the Court noted that credits for an offender’s background remain a discretionary exercise. The Supreme Court’s decision in Berkland v R clarified that a causative contribution between an offender’s background and offending will be sufficient to merit a credit at sentencing. The Court found that a combined reduction of 20 per cent as imposed by the Judge, was correct, if not generous. In terms of reduction for time spent on bail, the Court found that the Judge was open to refuse a credit as Mr Bell was compliant with bail simpliciter for nearly a year, but his remand on straight bail was terminated by a breach that resulted in a remand in custody. As for the uplift for five breaches of restraining order, the Court found that the five breaches warranted being marked by an uplift. Lastly, in terms of insufficient consideration to a rehabilitative sentence, the Court found that a rigid comparison of the starting points between Hamblin and the present case is not helpful. The offending in the present case was serious and justified a starting point in the range of 36 months imprisonment.

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders