Bosson v Police - [2025] NZHC 1913

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2025-443-22

[2025] NZHC 1913

BETWEEN
ALISON JANE BOSSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 July 2025

Appearances:

S J Parry for Appellant

P M Lange for Respondent

Judgment:

14 July 2025

Reissued:

21 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] Ms Bosson was sentenced on 30 April 2025 at the Hawera District Court, following the entry of guilty pleas, in relation to the following charges:1

(a)possession for supply of cannabis plants;2

(b)two charges of selling, giving, supplying, dealing cannabis plant;3 and

(c)permitting premises to be used for cannabis offending, namely cultivating cannabis.4

1      Police v Bosson [2025] NZDC 9564.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f): maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(d): maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 12: maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.

BOSSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1913 [14 July 2025]

[2] Ms Bosson was sentenced to two years and five months’ imprisonment. She now appeals against the sentence on the basis it is manifestly excessive because the sentencing Judge erred in assessing the quantity of cannabis possessed for supply, the starting point was too high and insufficient credit was given for her personal circumstances.

[3] The Police oppose the appeal, submitting that the end sentence is not manifestly excessive.

[4]For the reasons that follow, the appeal is allowed.

The offending

Offers cannabis

[5] Between 30 July 2024 and 27 August 2024 Ms Bosson offered cannabis plant on 12 different occasions via text messages.

Supply cannabis

[6] Between 1 August 2024 and 29 August 2024 Ms Bosson supplied cannabis plant on five different occasions via text messages.

Possession for supply of cannabis

[7] On 12 October 2024, during a search warrant at Ms Bosson’s address, Police located a large plastic container with six zip lock bags, one paper bag and a smaller plastic container. The total cannabis located in the container was 432 grams, with on average 57 grams contained in each of the zip lock bags. The Police also located two sets of scales and snap lock bags in the kitchen.

Permitting premises

[8] During the same search, Police located 96 cannabis plants in various stages of growth potted individually in a spare bedroom. In the wardrobe, a cannabis plant was hanging to dry, and another 886 grams of dried cannabis was located in a bag.

[9] In the garage, Police located a large double room grow tent for hydroponics with three old plants that had been cultivated. There was also equipment such as fans, heat lamps and lights.

[10] The total amount of dried cannabis located at Ms Bosson’s address was 1318 grams of cannabis with a total street value of approximately $7,000.

Decision under appeal

[11] The District Court Judge set out the charges as alleged in the summary of facts. The Judge had the benefit of written and…

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 Bosson v Police

Details

AGLC: Bosson v Police [2025] NZHC 1913
Case: [2025] NZHC 1913
Decision Date: 14 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Alison Jane Bosson appeals against her sentence imposed by the Hawera District Court. Ms Bosson was sentenced to two years and five months’ imprisonment following her guilty pleas to charges including possession for supply of cannabis plants and permitting premises to be used for cannabis offending. The central issue in this appeal is whether the sentence is manifestly excessive. Ms Bosson argues that the sentencing judge erred in the treatment of the quantity of cannabis attributed to the possession for supply charge, the starting point was too high, and insufficient credit was given for her personal circumstances.

The court found that the sentencing judge erred in attributing the quantity of cannabis for the possession for supply charge. The correct quantity was 432 grams, not the 1312 grams used by the judge to set the starting point. This error led to a starting point that was too high. The court determined that a more appropriate starting point for the possession for supply charge would be two years and one month’s imprisonment, rather than the two years and eight months adopted by the sentencing judge. The court also found that the uplifts and credits applied by the judge were within range and did not constitute error.

However, the court concluded that the sentence of two years and five months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The appropriate sentence should be two years’ imprisonment. Given that this is now a short-term sentence, the court considered whether leave should be reserved for Ms Bosson to apply for home detention if a suitable address became available. The court decided against reserving leave, noting Ms Bosson’s high risk of reoffending and her previous reoffending despite imprisonment. Therefore, the sentence to be imposed on appeal is two years’ imprisonment.

The court also addressed the imposition of special release conditions, agreeing to conditions relating to alcohol and drug counselling, problem gambling, employment and training, and a prohibition on possessing, consuming, or using alcohol or drugs. The court imposed these conditions until the sentence expiry date.

Orders