Legal Research
Cases
Campbell v The King

Campbell v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 2064 25 July 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2025-483-023

[2025] NZHC 2064

BETWEEN
ANTHONY ALEXANDER CAMPBELL

Applicant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 22 July 2025

Appearances:

I J G Hensman for Applicant K D Turner for Respondent

Judgment:

25 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Application for extension of time to appeal against conviction)

Introduction

[1] Anthony Campbell was convicted on one charge of unlawful possession of a firearm,1 after entering a guilty plea in the District Court at Whanganui. He was also convicted one charge each of unlawful possession of an explosive (ammunition),2 possession of cannabis resin,3 and failure to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search,4 along with two charges of assault on a person in a family relationship.5 He was sentenced for those charges to six months’ community detention and 18 months’ intensive supervision on 11 November 2023.6

1      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1) — maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment or $5,000 fine.
2      Arms Act, s 45(1) — maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment or $5,000 fine.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2) — maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or
$500 fine.
4      Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 178 — maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act 1961, s 194A — maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
6      New Zealand Police v Campbell [2023] NZDC 29731 [sentencing decision].

CAMPBELL v R [2025] NZHC 2064 (25 July 2025)

[2] Mr Campbell now seeks to appeal against the conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. He applies for leave for an extension of time to bring the appeal, as he has only recently received legal advice regarding his conviction. The proposed grounds of appeal are that he was wrongly charged and convicted because the Police summary of facts only referred to the stock of a firearm, and an actual firearm was never located.

[3] The Crown opposes the appeal, and says that counsel for Mr Campbell is mistaken in concluding that the firearm stock located by police is what formed the basis of the charge. Rather, the charge was based on a text message sent by Mr Campbell, from which it could be inferred he had the requisite possession of the firearm.

Background

[4] In relation to the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm, the summary of facts recorded that on 26 March 2023, at about 11.00 pm, Mr Campbell sent a text message to an associate offering to give her his AR7 rifle as payment for drugs. At
10.00 am on 13 June 2023, police executed a search warrant at Mr Campbell’s home address and located the stock to an AR7 rifle in his wardrobe. An AR7 is a .22 calibre tactical rifle that can be broken down, with all the working parts able to be stored inside the stock of the rifle. The working parts of the rifle were not located. Mr Campbell commented that police had taken the rest…

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 Campbell v The King

Details

AGLC: Campbell v The King [2025] NZHC 2064
Case: [2025] NZHC 2064
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Campbell v The King involves Anthony Campbell, who was convicted of multiple charges, including unlawful possession of a firearm. Campbell now seeks to appeal against the conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, applying for an extension of time to bring the appeal. He argues that he was wrongly charged and convicted because the Police summary of facts only referred to the stock of a firearm, and an actual firearm was never located. The Crown opposes the appeal, stating that the charge was based on a text message sent by Campbell, from which it could be inferred he had the requisite possession of the firearm.

The legal issues in this case include whether there was a miscarriage of justice in the conviction and whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted. The appeal court must determine if a miscarriage of justice has occurred, which includes any error, irregularity, or occurrence in or relating to the trial that has created a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected or has resulted in an unfair trial or a trial that was a nullity. Additionally, the court must consider whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted based on the interests of justice.

The court found that there was sufficient evidence for Campbell to be convicted of the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm. The possession of the stock together with the text message offering the gun for sale established a prima facie case. The court also noted that the appeal lacks merit and that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the late acquisition of proper legal advice. Therefore, an extension of time to appeal is not appropriate in the circumstances.

The application for an extension of time to appeal is declined, and the proposed grounds of appeal against conviction lack merit.

Orders