Boyd v The King - [2025] NZHC 2548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-335 CRI-2025-404-337 CRI-2025-404-338

[2025] NZHC 2548

BETWEEN
HARRY BOYD

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 2 September 2025

Appearances:

A Hart for Appellant

G Young for Respondent

Judgment:

3 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 September 2025 at 3.30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland Counsel: Hart & Associates, Auckland

BOYD v R [2025] NZHC 2548 [3 September 2025]

Introduction

[1] Harry Boyd pleaded guilty to a number of offences. On 27 May 2025 in the District Court at Auckland Judge D J Sharp sentenced Mr Boyd to 27 months’ imprisonment on three charges of unlawful possession of a firearm, two charges of unlawfully taking motor vehicles and one of receiving a motor vehicle.1 The Judge imposed lesser concurrent sentences in relation to charges of driving under the influence of drug, dangerous driving, possession of an offensive weapon and cultivation of cannabis. Mr Boyd had also breached a community work sentence relating to an earlier conviction in relation to cannabis. The Judge convicted and discharged him in relation to that matter.

Appeal

[2] Mr Boyd appeals against the sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment on the basis that it is manifestly excessive.

[3] Ms Hart submits on Mr Boyd’s behalf that the appropriate sentence would be one of less than 24 months and that he should be sentenced to home detention or alternatively, granted leave to apply for home detention for the remainder of his sentence.

Preliminary point

[4] In her written submissions Ms Hart took a preliminary point that the Judge was wrong to have declined an application for adjournment to check the availability or appropriateness of an address where Mr Boyd could have served a sentence of home detention.

[5] There is nothing in that point. As Andrew J noted at callover, there is no jurisdiction for this Court to hear an appeal from the decision of the District Court Judge in a criminal matter to decline to grant an adjournment.2 In any event if the ultimate sentence had been 24 months or less and the Judge considered home detention

1 NZ Police v Boyd [2025] NZDC 14857.
2 Sentencing Act 2002, s 25; Criminal Procedure Act 2011, pt 6, sub-pt 4; and Brampton v New Zealand Police [2015] NZHC 2618 at [41].

appropriate leave could have been granted to Mr Boyd to apply for home detention once a suitable address was identified.

Offending background

[6] In sentencing Mr Boyd, Judge Sharp referred to the offending in the following way:
[1] Just stay seated, Mr Boyd, I will tell you at the end when I pass the sentence. You are here in relation to a charge of breach of community work, and you were sentenced on 27 October in Waitakere to do community work in respect of cultivation of cannabis and you pleaded guilty to breach 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 Boyd v The King

Details

AGLC: Boyd v The King [2025] NZHC 2548
Case: [2025] NZHC 2548
Decision Date: 3 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Harry Boyd appeals against the 27-month imprisonment sentence imposed on him by Judge Sharp in the Auckland District Court for various offences, including unlawful possession of firearms, unlawfully taking motor vehicles, and receiving a motor vehicle. Boyd argues that the sentence is manifestly excessive and should be reduced to less than 24 months, with a suggestion of home detention as an alternative. Boyd's counsel also contends that the District Court Judge erred in declining to adjourn the sentencing hearing to assess the appropriateness of an address for home detention.

The court addresses the preliminary point raised by Boyd's counsel, dismissing it as the High Court lacks jurisdiction to review the District Court Judge's decision to decline an adjournment in a criminal matter. The court finds no error in the Judge's approach, noting that if the sentence had been 24 months or less, leave could have been granted for Boyd to apply for home detention.

In assessing the appeal, the court examines the offending background and the District Court's sentencing process. The Judge took the firearms offences as the lead, imposing a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment and then applying uplifts for other charges, including cannabis cultivation, unlawful taking, receiving, dangerous driving, driving under the influence of drugs, and breach of community work. After applying credits for totality and guilty plea, the Judge arrived at a final sentence of 27 months.

The court evaluates Boyd's counsel's arguments regarding the starting point and uplifts, considering the crude and homemade nature of the firearms and the relatively small amount of cannabis involved. The court concludes that the Judge's starting point for the cannabis cultivation and the overall uplifts were appropriate, and the final sentence was within range. Despite criticisms of the sentencing process, the court finds no error in the final sentence and dismisses the appeal.

The appeal against sentence is dismissed, and the original sentence of 27 months' imprisonment stands.

Orders