Legal Research
Cases
Cormack v The King

Cormack v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 2873 1 October 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2025-425-000010

[2025] NZHC 2873

BETWEEN
SELWYN ERIC CORMACK

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 22 September 2025

Appearances:

S G Vidal for Appellant

M B Brownlie for Respondent

Judgment:

1 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 October 2025 at 9.00 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

CORMACK v R [2025] NZHC 2873 [1 October 2025]

Introduction

[1] Selwyn Cormack, aged 61, pleaded guilty to a series of cannabis related offending, including 75 charges of possession for supply of cannabis,1 one of cultivating cannabis,2 two of unlawfully possessing firearms3 and one of unlawfully possessing ammunition.4 On 13 February 2025, Judge M Williams sentenced him to two years and nine months’ imprisonment.5

[2] Mr Cormack appeals the sentence on the basis that term was manifestly excessive and the Judge wrongly applied the guideline judgment for such offending.

Facts

[3] On 24 June 2024, police executed a search warrant at Mr Cormack’s address and located 44 cannabis plants in grow tents, 13 cannabis seedlings in a hydroponic tent, a .303 calibre rifle, a dismantled shotgun, 122 shotgun cartridges and three rifle rounds. During a search of Mr Cormack’s phone, his messages revealed further evidence of his involvement in the supply of cannabis. It identified that between 13 July 2021 and 22 June 2024, he supplied and offered to supply cannabis to eight associates on 75 occasions. The investigation found Mr Cormack supplied approximately 77 ounces of cannabis with a street value of $26,950. He offered to supply a further 26.5 ounces, with a street value around $9,275. In explanation, he said he was growing cannabis for personal use, and he got the firearms off someone on the street.

District Court decision

[4] The Judge applied the tariff decision for cannabis offending, R v Terewi.6 Given the cannabis dealing took place over a three-year period, he determined it fell within the middle of band two and adopted a starting point of three years’ imprisonment. He then uplifted this by 15 months for the firearms offending. A 25 per

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f); maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 9(1); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1); maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment or $5000 fine.
4      Section 22B; maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
5      R v Cormack [2025] NZDC 2774.
6      R v Terewi [1999] 3 NZLR 62 (CA).

cent deduction was given for guilty pleas. A further 10 per cent was deducted for personal mitigating factors including Mr Cormack’s health and age. This resulted in an end sentence of two years and nine months’ imprisonment.

[5] Ms Vidal advises Mr Cormack, who spent approximately seven months in custody on remand prior to sentencing, has been admitted to parole by the Board.

Argument on appeal

[6] Ms Vidal submits the Judge erred in applying

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 Cormack v The King

Details

AGLC: Cormack v The King [2025] NZHC 2873
Case: [2025] NZHC 2873
Decision Date: 1 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Selwyn Eric Cormack appeals the sentence imposed on him by Judge M Williams of the District Court, which was two years and nine months' imprisonment for cannabis-related offences and possession of firearms and ammunition. The appeal is premised on the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge misapplied the guideline judgment for cannabis offending. The key legal issues for the court to decide were whether the starting point for the cannabis offending was correctly set, and whether the 15-month uplift for the firearms offending was justified.

The court held that R v Terewi remains the applicable guideline judgment for cannabis offending and that the sentencing judge did not err in categorising Mr Cormack's offending as falling within band two of Terewi. The court found that the amount of cannabis cultivated and the extent and period of sales demonstrated an intent to derive profit, justifying the starting point of three years' imprisonment. The court also held that the 15-month uplift for the firearms offending was appropriate given the inherent seriousness of possessing firearms in connection with drug dealing. The appeal was dismissed.

The final orders were that the appeal be dismissed and that Mr Cormack be committed to serve the sentence of two years and nine months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court.

Orders