Crowley v Police - [2025] NZHC 2757

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2025-454-20

[2025] NZHC 2757

BETWEEN
DANIEL CROWLEY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 September 2025

Appearances:

J J Harvey for Appellant

A R Barham for Respondent

Judgment:

22 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

[1] On 23 May 2025, Mr Daniel Crowley (the appellant) was sentenced by Judge Krebs in the Palmerston North District Court to two years and seven months’ imprisonment on the following charges:1

(a)possession of cannabis plant for supply;2

(b)intentionally manufacturing a firearm x 2;3

(c)unlawful possession of a firearm;4 and

(d)unlawful possession of ammunition.5

1      Police v Crowley [2025] NZDC 10845 [Judgment under appeal].
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(c)—maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment.
3      Arms Act 1983, s 55D(1)(a) and (2)—maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 45(1)—maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine.
5      Section 22B—maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine.

CROWLEY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2757 [22 September 2025]

[2] The appellant appeals against his sentence. He says home detention or a lower sentence of imprisonment should have been imposed.

Background

Criminal history

[3] The appellant has only one prior conviction, for possession of cannabis. His counsel, Mr Harvey, submits that the appellant was about 20 at the time, that it was a very small quantity of cannabis, and that he was fined $175 plus court costs.

Revocation of the appellant’s firearms licence

[4] On 21 December 2021, the appellant’s firearms licence was revoked following a suspension review deeming him not to be a fit and proper person.

The offending

[5] On 5 August 2024, police executed a warrantless search for firearms in relation to a threat made by a person living at the appellant’s address. A large quantity of cannabis was located by police in a bag next to the appellant’s bed.

[6] Later that day, a search warrant was granted by Palmerston North District Court relating to firearms and cannabis at the address. Further searching of the address yielded 1.403 kg of cannabis along with scales and ziplock bags. Of the total seized, police assessed 886 grams was useable, comprising 624 grams of cabbage leaf/material and 262 grams of cannabis head.

[7] A 3D printer was also found in the appellant’s lounge during the search of the address. Police located boxes containing a large number of 3D-printed parts for a Harlot .22 single shot pistol, a VP-22 single shot pistol and an HD22 semi-automatic rifle.

[8] Police located an operational 3D-printed Harlot .22 single shot pistol in the appellant’s bedside drawer, alongside an operational 3D-printed VP-22 single shot pistol. A Magtech .22 long range semi-automatic rifle was found under the appellant’s

bed. Police also located 29 .22 Remington rounds, two shotgun shells and 16 rounds of .22 ammunition.

[9] The appellant admitted to possessing the cannabis and selling small amounts, but said most was for personal use only. He…

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 Crowley v Police

Details

AGLC: Crowley v Police [2025] NZHC 2757
Case: [2025] NZHC 2757
Decision Date: 22 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Daniel Crowley appeals against his sentence imposed by the Palmerston North District Court. The appellant was sentenced to two years and seven months’ imprisonment for manufacturing 3D-printed firearms, possessing a semi-automatic rifle, and possessing and selling cannabis. The appellant argues that the sentence is manifestly excessive and that he should have been sentenced to home detention. The central legal issues were whether the starting point and uplifts were within the range available and whether the reductions applied were appropriate. The court found that the starting point and uplifts were within the range available and rejected the appellant's arguments for additional reductions. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive, and it dismissed the appeal. The court did not order a reduction in the sentence but left the original sentence intact.

Orders