Carlyn Anderson v The King - [2025] NZCA 464

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…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Carlyn Anderson v The King and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZCA 464
Decision Date: 11 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Carlyn Anderson appeals her sentence of five years and four months’ imprisonment imposed by the District Court at Whangarei after she pleaded guilty to multiple charges relating to the supply and possession of methamphetamine and cannabis. The Crown argues that the sentence was appropriate, while Ms Anderson contends that the sentence should be lower due to several alleged errors in the sentencing process.

The key issues before the Court were whether the District Court erred in setting the starting point for the methamphetamine offending, in the uplift for the cannabis offending, in the reduction for guilty pleas, in the personal mitigating factors, and in the credit for time spent on electronically monitored bail. Ms Anderson's counsel submitted that the starting point and uplift were too high, that insufficient credit was given for her guilty pleas, personal mitigating factors, and time on bail.

The Court found that the starting point for the methamphetamine offending was appropriate, considering the quantity of drugs involved and Ms Anderson’s significant role. The Court also found that the 18-month uplift for the cannabis offending was within range. While Ms Anderson's counsel argued for a greater reduction for her guilty pleas, the Court found that she bore considerable responsibility for the delays. Regarding personal factors, the Court found that the 35 per cent reduction for addiction, rehabilitation, and remorse was within the appropriate range, despite some overlap between the factors. Finally, the Court found that the credit given for time on electronically monitored bail was also within range.

The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders