Brazendale v The King - [2025] NZHC 693

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000685

[2025] NZHC 693

BETWEEN
DANIEL GEOFFREY BRAZENDALE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 25 March 2025

Counsel:

STL Teppett for Appellant A Lin for Respondent

Judgment:

31 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 31 March 2025 at 12 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau. STL Teppett, Auckland.

BRAZENDALE v R [2025] NZHC 693 [31 March 2025]

The appeal

[1] Daniel Brazendale received a sentence of two years and five months’ imprisonment on charges of discharging a firearm in a public place; possessing a firearm except for a lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose; and cultivating cannabis.1 Mr Brazendale appeals. He contends the sentence is wrong and home detention should have been imposed.

[2] The appeal must be allowed if there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed.2 The test is typically expressed as whether the sentence is manifestly excessive.3

Background

[3]Judge J C Moses helpfully captured the facts:

[2] The brief facts as agreed are that at the time of this offending in June 2022 you were 66 years old and living at an address in Mangere Bridge. You knew the two victims. You do not hold a firearms licence.

[3] On 10 June, the victims were in a two door Toyota motor vehicle driving down Church Road in Mangere [Bridge]. Mr Dickey was driving and Mr Edwards was in the front passenger’s seat. They also had a dog in the back seat of the vehicle. As they drove down Church Road they saw you walking on the left side of the footpath. They slowed down beside you and you approached the passenger’s seat pulling out a firearm. The dog in the back seat lunged at you causing you to step back which allowed them to drive off. One of the victims then called police to report that you had pointed a firearm at them.

[4] The victims then circled back to Woodward Avenue to see where you had gone. You saw them and pulled out your firearm and then fired one shot at the victim’s vehicle which connected with the left rear pillar close to the back passenger’s seat window. That caused a small dent on the vehicle. One of the victims again called police to report that you had fired a shot at them. You were then seen running towards your address on Woodward Avenue.

[5] The following day police executed a search warrant at your address. The police located a metal barrelled pistol outside the address in a hedge next to the driveway. It was found to have a .22 case in its chamber which appeared to have been discharged, namely without any projectile. They searched bedroom 1 of the address and discovered it had been modified into a sophisticated cannabis cultivation room. They located six cannabis plants

1 R v Brazendale [2024] NZDC…

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 Brazendale v The King

Details

AGLC: Brazendale v The King [2025] NZHC 693
Case: [2025] NZHC 693
Decision Date: 31 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel Geoffrey Brazendale appeals his sentence of two years and five months’ imprisonment for charges including discharging a firearm in a public place, possessing a firearm except for a lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose, and cultivating cannabis. He argues the sentence is wrong and home detention should have been imposed instead. The appeal hinges on whether the sentence is manifestly excessive. The appellant contends the three-year starting point for the firearms offending is excessive, the six-month uplift for the cannabis offending is excessive, and the sentence should be mitigated for personal circumstances.

The court considered the starting point for the firearms offence, which was three years. The appellant's counsel argued this was excessive, but the court found it unremarkable given the seriousness of the offence, particularly in light of public concern about firearms in public places. The court also found the six-month uplift for the cannabis offence unremarkable, considering the sophisticated but not quite commercial nature of the cannabis cultivation. Regarding personal circumstances, the court found the appellant's background warranted a discount, but this was within the margin of appreciation that attaches to sentencing.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found the sentence was within the margin of appreciation, and thus no different sentence should be imposed.

Orders