Carlyn Anderson v The King
[2025] NZCA 464
•11 September 2025
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA
CA156/2025
[2025] NZCA 464
BETWEEN CARLYN ANDERSON
Appellant
AND
THE KING
Respondent
Hearing: 28 July 2025 Court:
French P, Jagose and Gault JJ
Counsel:
A M M Ives for Appellant
R B Annandale and A J Goodwin for Respondent
Judgment:
11 September 2025 at 2.30 pm
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appeal is dismissed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Gault J)
[1] Ms Anderson appeals her sentence of five years and four months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Davey in the District Court at Whangarei on 24 February 2025,1 after she pleaded guilty to six charges of supplying methamphetamine,2 four charges of offering to supply methamphetamine,3 two
1 R v Anderson [2025] NZDC 4107 [sentencing notes].
2 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3 Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
ANDERSON v R [2025] NZCA 464 [11 September 2025]
charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply,4 one charge of possession of methamphetamine,5 and three charges of offering to sell cannabis.6
The offending
[2]We adopt the sentencing Judge’s summary of the offending:7
[2] Briefly the facts are that the police conducted an operation into the supply of methamphetamine in Northland called Operation Freya. They identified Mr Apiata who was supplying ounce lots of methamphetamine to you, Ms Anderson, and it seems that you were then supplying large quantities of methamphetamine around the Kaikohe and Rawene regions.
[3] Also, between 23 July 2021 and 5 October 2021, Ms Anderson, you offered to supply over 6.6 kilograms of cannabis to three people over 25 occasions. The amount on some occasions are unknown and has not been included in that total.
[4] Also, that between 11 July 2021 and 7 October 2021, you supplied over 184 grams of methamphetamine in ounce amounts to two people over six occasions. Then, between 14 August 2021 and 12 October 2021, you offered to supply 341 grams to three people on at least 10 occasions, usually in ounce amounts.
[5] Then between 6 October 2021 and 10 October 2021, you bought 14 ounces or about 390 grams of methamphetamine from Mr Apiata over a four day period it seems for approximately $98,000 and supplied this methamphetamine in the Northland community, although it seems that some of this is included in the supply charges that you have pleaded guilty to as well. The Crown has also pointed out that on 10 October, you were again in contact with Mr Apiata asking for a resupply because demand had been so great.
[6] On 15 October, the same year, the police executed a search warrant and they located 22 bags of methamphetamine each containing half a gram each. They also located 12 cannabis plants in a growing room under lights and the plants were staked and starting to bud. They also found 32 cannabis seedlings outside in the sun. The same day, both of you were stopped in a ute and the police found $1,000 in $100 notes in a purse and a further $1,300 in another wallet plus a gram of methamphetamine.
[7] On 28 March 2022, the police executed a search warrant at an address in Dargaville and found 1.45 grams of methamphetamine and several empty snap lock bags, two glass pipes and several cell phones. Ms Anderson, you were on bail at that stage for this previous offending, which included being prohibited from possessing a cell phone.
4 Sections 6(1)(f) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
5 Section 7(1)(a) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding
$1,000.
6 Section 6(1)(e) and (2)(c). Maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.
7 Sentencing notes, above n 1.
[8] In total, it is said, Ms Anderson, that you possessed, supplied or offered to supply 925 grams, although some of the 14 ounces, as I have said, was included in the above supplies. However, there are also a number of transactions where the amounts were not known and have not been included in that total, so it was getting towards a kilogram of methamphetamine in total.
The sentencing decision
[3] The Judge said the lead methamphetamine offending was within band four of Zhang v R,8 which involves methamphetamine between 500 grams and two kilograms and has a range of between eight and 16 years’ imprisonment as a starting point.9 The Judge said that even though there was some double up, the quantity involved totalled around 900 grams, and Ms Anderson played a substantial role.10 He set the starting point for this offending at nine and a half years’ imprisonment.11 Taking into account the cannabis offending and totality, the Judge imposed an uplift of 18 months.12
[4] In terms of Ms Anderson’s personal factors, the Judge said she had no relevant previous convictions.13 The Judge allowed a 10 per cent reduction for her guilty pleas and 35 per cent for her addiction, efforts at rehabilitation, good work done at the Grace Foundation and remorse.14 This reduced the starting point of 11 years to approximately six years.15 The Judge said he also allowed six months for Ms Anderson’s two and a half years on restrictive bail, ultimately imposing an end sentence of five years and four months’ imprisonment.16
Approach on appeal
[5] Sentence appeals are governed by s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. A first appeal court must allow the appeal if satisfied that, for any reason, there is an error in the sentence imposed on conviction and a different sentence should be imposed.17 Otherwise, the Court must dismiss the appeal.18
8 Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [11], citing Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648.
9 Zhang v R, above n 8, at [125].
10 Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [16].
11 At [16].
12 At [18].
13 At [24].
14 At [27].
15 At [36].
16 At [37] and [40].
17 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
18 Section 250(3).
[6] When considering whether a different sentence should be imposed, the Court will have regard to the end sentence, rather than the process by which it was reached.19 It is appropriate for the court to intervene where the sentence being appealed is “manifestly excessive” and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles.20
Discussion
[7] Ms Anderson’s grounds of appeal challenge each stage of the Judge’s sentencing. Ms Ives, for Ms Anderson, submitted that the Judge erred by:
(a)adopting too high a starting point for the methamphetamine offending;
(b)adopting too high an uplift for the cannabis offending;
(c)providing insufficient credit for Ms Anderson’s guilty pleas;
(d)providing insufficient credit for mitigating factors, in particular the nexus between Ms Anderson’s addiction and the offending, rehabilitative efforts and s 10 factors; and
(e)providing insufficient credit for time spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail.
Starting point for methamphetamine offending
[8] In relation to the starting point, Ms Ives submitted the Judge erred in sentencing Ms Anderson on the basis the quantity of methamphetamine was 900 grams given the overlap between the possession and supply charges and the impurity of the methamphetamine. We do not accept this submission. Ms Anderson was sentenced on the basis of an agreed summary of facts and cannot go behind those agreed facts on appeal.
19 See Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36].
20 Mines v R [2022] NZCA 113 at [26], citing Ripia v R [2011] NZCA 101 at [15]; and Tutakangahau v R, above n 19, at [36].
[9] The summary of facts quantified a total of 925 grams supplied, offered for supply or possessed. Mr Annandale, for the Crown, acknowledged that some of the methamphetamine Ms Anderson possessed could have formed part of the methamphetamine that she supplied but submitted the amount of overlap cannot exceed 113 grams based on the timing of the supplies. Further, he submitted that, for a number of the transactions the amount of methamphetamine supplied or offered for supply is unknown and these transactions have not been included in the methamphetamine totals in the summary of facts. So, he submitted, the quantum of methamphetamine assessed by the Court could be higher. Moreover, the District Court specifically addressed both of these factors at sentencing and determined despite these factors Ms Anderson’s offending would have been around 900 grams.21 We do not consider there was any material error.
[10] Next, Ms Ives referred to the 10 year starting points for Ms Anderson’s supplier, Mr Apiata,22 and in R v Whare,23 which she submitted involved more serious offending. However, those cases do not assist Ms Anderson. Although Mr Apiata was a supplier to Ms Anderson, he was sentenced on the basis of supplying 346 grams of methamphetamine, meaning that he fell within band three of Zhang.24 His other methamphetamine charges involved conspiracy with a lower maximum penalty, albeit Ms Ives submitted that the offending was up the sliding scale. Whare can also be distinguished. While the quantity of methamphetamine was higher (1.23 kilograms) , a substantial portion was relevant to a charge of conspiring to supply rather than actual supply, thus carrying a lower maximum penalty.25 Also, the offender in that case was primarily operating under the direction of another.26 Having regard to the quantity, Ms Anderson’s significant role and other comparable cases cited by the Crown,27 the
21 Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [16].
22 R v Kerr [2024] NZHC 2289.
23 R v Whare [2023] NZHC 1719.
24 At [30]–[34]. See also Zhang v R, above n 8, at [125].
25 R v Whare, above n 23, at [34]–[41].
26 At [44].
27 Such authorities included Clark v R [2020] NZCA 641 at [13]–[17] where the offending was low band four, the defendant had a significant role, and where a starting point of nine and a half years’ imprisonment was regarded as appropriate, albeit the defendant in that case was also sentenced on a charge of possession of an offensive weapon. Further, in R v Chanthawong [2022] NZHC 1623 at [35]–[45] and [47]–[51] the offending was high band three, the defendant had a significant role, and a starting point of nine and a half years’ imprisonment was adopted.
starting point of nine and a half years’ imprisonment was well within the appropriate range.
Uplift for cannabis offending
[11] The uplift of 18 months for Ms Anderson’s cannabis offending was also within range. Whare does not suggest otherwise. The 12-month uplift in that case involved much the same quantity but the offender’s cannabis offending making up that quantum included a number of offences with lower maximum penalties.28 The offender also had a limited role, with another offender being the leading driver of the offending.29
Guilty pleas reduction
[12] Ms Ives submitted that delays in entering guilty pleas were largely due to a lack of response from the Crown despite counsel’s attempts over several months to resolve the matter, and that as soon as she received a response from the Crown and the matter could resolve, Ms Anderson entered guilty pleas. Ms Ives submitted the delays could not be solely attributed to Ms Anderson. She submitted the matter was complex, there was a sticking point in relation to one particular charge and that the trial would not have gone ahead anyway given another priority trial. However, the timeline indicates that Ms Anderson must take considerable responsibility for the delays. She was arrested in October 2021, but guilty pleas were not entered until October 2024, three years after her arrest, in the week before her two-week jury trial was due to start. The trial had been set down at a callover on 23 March 2023. We also note that the case against Ms Anderson included significant telecommunications data and recorded phone calls where it was clear drug dealing was being discussed, and that she received the benefit of a resolution that included the withdrawal of certain charges and the amalgamation of other charges into representative charges.30 The 10 per cent guilty plea was within range.
28 See R v Whare, above n 23 at [37].
29 At [44] and [55].
30 It is well established that in calculating the amount of a guilty plea discount, the strength of the Crown case may be taken into account: Kronfeld v R [2025] NZCA 435 at [20], citing Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 at [74]; and Karipa v R [2025] NZCA 274 at [30(b)].
Personal mitigating factors
[13]In relation to personal factors, Ms Ives submitted that:
(a)Ms Anderson’s rehabilitative efforts at the Grace Foundation warranted a reduction of more than that given to Mr Berkland in Berkland v R;31
(b)Ms Anderson should have received a reduction of 20 per cent to reflect the contents of Alcohol and Other Drug reports and the causal nexus between her addiction and the offending, despite the element of commerciality; and
(c)Ms Anderson should also have received a 10 per cent reduction for genuine remorse.
[14] Referring to Wirihana v R,32 Ms Ives submitted that this exceptional case warranted a discount for personal factors of more than the 50 per cent.
[15] The Judge applied a 35 per cent reduction for Ms Anderson’s addiction, efforts at rehabilitation, good work done at the Grace Foundation, and remorse.33 This aggregate reduction was not broken down.
[16] Mr Annandale submitted that the District Court was correct to fix a global downward adjustment for addiction, rehabilitation and remorse due to the overlapping nature of these discounts in this case. Where there are overlapping personal mitigating factors, the Court may consider it is more appropriate to fix a global reduction, rather than calculating individual reductions in isolation. However, where possible, we consider it is preferable to identify discrete reductions,34 just as it is with guilty pleas.35
31 Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509 at [162] where Mr Berkland received a 10 per cent reduction for his deprived background and the role of addiction in his offending, and also received a further 10 per cent reduction to account for his efforts at rehabilitation.
32 Wirihana v R [2020] NZCA 151.
33 Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [34].
34 See Salt v R [2022] NZCA 611 at [35], in relation to youth.
35 R v Walker [2009] NZCA 56 at [13].
[17] Starting with Ms Anderson’s background and addiction, like the Judge, we accept there was a connection between Ms Anderson’s addiction and the offending, albeit tempered by the fact that the supply exceeded what would have been expected by addiction-driven offending.36 As the Judge said, Ms Anderson was 57 years of age. She seemed to have had a good upbringing but was introduced to methamphetamine in her early twenties by an abusive partner. We accept she has had a long-standing history of addiction. But the offending was on a much greater level than simply feeding her addiction. Having regard to other sentencing purposes such as denunciation and deterrence of others, we consider a 10 to 15 per cent reduction for her background and addiction would have been appropriate.
[18] We accept that Ms Anderson’s rehabilitative efforts at the Grace Foundation are genuinely exceptional, like Mr Berkland’s, and warranted a material reduction. But, in the context of this offending, we do not consider that more than a further 10 per cent reduction was required for Ms Anderson’s rehabilitative efforts/prospects.
[19] We accept too that a discrete reduction of five to 10 per cent may have been appropriate for Ms Anderson’s genuine remorse and charitable donations totalling
$10,000 to make amends.
[20] Viewing these discrete reductions in aggregate, it might be said the combined 35 per cent reduction applied by the Judge was not generous. But taking into account some overlap between these components, the combined 35 per cent reduction was within range.
Time on EM bail
[21] For Ms Anderson’s time on EM bail, Ms Ives submitted a greater discount of 12 to 18 months should be allowed for her time on EM bail. Applying the approach in Shramka v R,37 Ms Anderson was on EM bail for a total of 34 months. After 11 months on 24-hour curfew, her curfew was reduced to 12-hours (7.00 pm to 7.00 am) and she was able to undertake rehabilitation courses, employment, visit
36 Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [29].
37 Shramka v R [2022] NZCA 299, [2022] 3 NZLR 348 at [61].
family in the Bay of Plenty, and travel to Northland to look after her property. She had two bail breaches — involving drugs and cell phones — but we acknowledge they occurred early, before meaningful rehabilitation had an effect, and she was readmitted to bail. Her time on bail overlapped with her rehabilitative efforts at the Grace Foundation. Although the Judge referred to six months, the effective reduction, after the 45 per cent discount for other factors, was seven and a half months. Overall, we consider the Judge’s allowance for time on EM bail was within range.
Conclusion
[22] Standing back, we conclude the end sentence of five years and four months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
Result
[23]The appeal is dismissed.
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei for Respondent
0
15
0