Carter v The King - [2025] NZCA 400

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA779/2024
[2025] NZCA 400

BETWEEN	LYNMARIE CARTER Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	16 June 2025
Court:	Ellis, Peters, Walker JJ
Counsel:	D J Allan for Appellant Z Zhang and M J Lillico for Respondent
Judgment:	13 August 2025 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed.
BThe sentence of five years and four months’ imprisonment is set aside and a sentence of four years and four months’ imprisonment is imposed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Walker J)

The appellant, Ms Carter, pleaded guilty to charges involving serious drug offending. She was sentenced to five years and four months’ imprisonment in the District Court at Auckland.[1] Ms Carter now appeals her sentence. She contends it is manifestly excessive because the starting point was too high, the allowance for guilty plea inadequate and the imposition of a five per cent uplift for previous convictions was unwarranted.

Offending

[1]R v Carter [2024] NZDC 26887 [sentencing notes] at [13].

Ms Carter was charged with her partner of 45 years, Mr Pearce. Judge Cocurullo’s sentencing notes summarised her offending based on the amended summary of facts to which Ms Carter pleaded guilty:
[2]       I refer to the amended summary of facts of 16 July 2024. You were identified as somebody in this network of methamphetamine suppliers just below a Mr Ball. You were caught by the police obtaining telephone data for you over generally that period from September 2021 to January 2022. The communications showed that you were a busy lower-level dealer with a customer base of at least 33 separate individuals around Hamilton. The communications revealed your partner, Mr Pearce, who is your co‑accused involved in a support role for you. It was identified that on occasion he was delivering methamphetamine and on two other occasions providing enforcement or debt collection services.
[3]       You, Ms Carter, were admitted to hospital during the course of the investigation and the summary of facts shows that Mr Pearce, who I am yet to deal with, took over the operations and asked for an update.
[4]       The summary of facts makes a typical chain of events where Mr Ball would purchase kilogram quantities of methamphetamine from Auckland and deliver one to three ounce quantities to either you or Mr Pearce, usually on credit. The summary of facts details what the methamphetamine was being bought for and the sums set out. It then specifically turns to the factual matrix in respect of each of the charges, the possession for supply, together with the remaining five charges of supplying methamphetamine.
[5]       The short point is that you are to be sentenced today responsible for a massive amount of methamphetamine, 524.25 grams …
While Ms Carter and Mr Pearce were convicted jointly in respect of some charges, the quantities of methamphetamine attributed to each of them were different and Ms Carter was also convicted of further individual charges. Given…

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 Carter v The King

Details

AGLC: Carter v The King [2025] NZCA 400
Case: [2025] NZCA 400
Decision Date: 13 August 2025 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Carter, the appellant, challenged her five years and four months' imprisonment sentence, imposed by the District Court at Auckland, on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive. She argued that the starting point was too high, the allowance for her guilty plea was inadequate, and the imposition of a five per cent uplift for her previous convictions was unwarranted. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, with the judgment delivered by Walker J. The court found that the original sentence was indeed excessive due to the starting point being too high, the uplift for prior offending being too great, and the guilty plea credit not being equivalent to that received by her co-accused, Mr Pearce. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the sentence was reduced to four years and four months' imprisonment.

The court examined the nature and extent of Ms Carter's involvement in drug offending, which involved possession and supply of methamphetamine. The appellant and her partner, Mr Pearce, were jointly charged with some offences, but the quantities of drugs attributed to each of them were different. The court found that the starting point adopted by the sentencing Judge placed Ms Carter's offending within band three of Zhang, rather than band four, after considering the respective roles of Mr Pearce and Ms Carter over the entire period of offending. The court also found that the five per cent uplift for prior convictions was excessive, and that Ms Carter should have received the same guilty plea credit as Mr Pearce, which was 20 per cent. Taking these factors into account, the court reduced the sentence to four years and four months' imprisonment.

Orders