1      Police v Crouch [2025] NZDC 941.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(c) — maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment.
3      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1) — maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment or $5,000.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 7(1)(a) and (2)(a) — maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or
$1,000.
5      Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 178 — maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.

CROUCH v POLICE [2025] NZHC 739 [1 April 2025]

[1]Mr Crouch now appeals his sentence on the grounds that:

(a)The starting point for possession of cannabis for supply was too high.

(b)The uplift for the firearm, given all the circumstances, was too high.

(c)The Judge elevated the risk of the appellant presented by referring to him as a person with a history of violence.

(d)The Judge failed to take into account the significant and longstanding drug addiction that the appellant suffers.

(e)The low-level nature of the appellant’s drug dealing should have been given more weight, in light of the principles in Zhang v R.6

The offending

[2] On 19 November 2024, police executed a search warrant at the address of Mr Crouch. At the address, police found a sawn-off double barrel 12-gauge shotgun between Mr Crouch’s mattress and headboard. Police located 334 g of cannabis plant material in a large plastic bag. Police observed that the amount found could package 12 ounce-bags. Police located various amounts of cannabis stored in plastic bags and containers, with a total combined weight of 74.12 g. Police located a gram of methamphetamine in a safe, on the desk in the lounge. Police located approximately
0.5 g of methamphetamine inside a small plastic container. Police also located multiple small plastic bags which they noted were commonly used to package methamphetamine for supply.

[3] Police found $1,700 cash (in $50 and $20 denominations) in Mr Crouch’s leather jacket. Police seized Mr Crouch’s cell phone for examination pursuant to the search warrant. When the police asked for the passcode to access the device, the appellant refused to give the passcode.

6 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507; [2019] 3 NZLR 648.

Sentencing decision

[4] The Judge noted that Mr Crouch has had 21 previous convictions since 1998, with 13 drug related convictions. Most recently in 2020, Mr Crouch was convicted on charges of…

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 Crouch v Police

Details

AGLC: Crouch v Police [2025] NZHC 739
Case: [2025] NZHC 739
Decision Date: 1 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Crouch v Police, heard by the High Court of New Zealand, involved an appeal by Mr. Gregory Crouch against his sentence. Mr. Crouch was sentenced to two years and eight and a half months’ imprisonment for various charges, including possession of cannabis for supply, unlawful possession of a firearm, possession of methamphetamine, and failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search. The appeal challenged the starting point for the possession of cannabis for supply, the firearms uplift, the Judge’s reference to Mr. Crouch’s history of violence, the consideration of Mr. Crouch’s significant drug addiction, and the nature of his drug dealing. The Crown argued that the sentence was proportionate and not manifestly excessive.

The court first examined the starting point for the possession of cannabis for supply. The Judge had correctly categorised the cannabis offending within band two of R v Terewi, setting a starting point of two years’ imprisonment. The court found that the Judge’s assessment was appropriate despite the appellant's arguments suggesting a lower starting point. The court then considered the firearms uplift, concluding that the 12-month uplift was within the appropriate range, particularly in the context of drug dealing. The court dismissed the argument that the Judge had placed undue weight on Mr. Crouch’s history of violence. Regarding Mr. Crouch’s drug addiction, the court found that the five per cent discount applied was within the appropriate range. The court also noted an arithmetical error in the Judge’s calculation of the final sentence, correcting it to two years six and a half months’ imprisonment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to correct the sentence, but dismissed in all other respects.

Orders