Drever v The King - [2025] NZHC 1245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-141

[2025] NZHC 1245

BETWEEN
AARON CARL DREVER

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 12 May 2025

Counsel:

S D Withers for the appellant D B Dow for the respondent

Judgment:

20 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF JOHNSTONE J

(appeal against sentence)

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 May 2025 at 4pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: MC, Auckland

DREVER v R [2025] NZHC 1245 [20 May 2025]

[1] Aaron Carl Drever pleaded guilty to charges relating to his unlawful conduct as a bankrupt, and was sentenced in the District Court to 15 months’ imprisonment.1 He appeals against that sentence.

[2] Mr Drever takes no issue with the sentencing Judge’s calculations, in the sense that he accepts, if a prison sentence were needed, its duration might appropriately have been set at 15 months. But he says that, instead of a prison sentence, the Judge should have imposed a sentence of home detention.

[3] I must allow the appeal if satisfied that for any reason there is an error in the sentence imposed and a different sentence should be imposed.2

Mr Drever, his offending and the courts’ response to date

[4] Mr Drever is 41 years old. He has relevant previous convictions, for which he has served a prison sentence. It is important that I set out the nature and timing of the offending for which Mr Drever has served time in prison, and the nature and timing of the offending for which Mr Drever says he should now serve home detention, to assist understanding of his appeal. And, for the same reason, that I set out the courts’ response to date. I will do so chronologically.

[5] In December 2016, while a suspended real estate agent, Mr Drever committed a fraud on the Avondale Bowling Club, convincing it to sell land for $330,000 to a company associated with him, which on-sold the land for $825,000 to a purchaser he had kept secret from the club.

[6] From early 2019, Mr Drever commenced work to establish fish and chip takeaway shops in various Auckland suburbs. In April 2019, Mr Drever’s then partner incorporated FC Te Atatū Ltd (FC Te Atatū), which leased premises and commenced a fish and chip business in Te Atatū, with Mr Drever involved in its management.

[7] In June 2019, Mr Drever was adjudicated bankrupt, and prohibited from being a director of a company, or taking part in business management without consent of the

1 R v Drever [2025] NZDC 5463.
2 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.

Official Assignee or the Court. From that point, the Official Assignee sought to have Mr Drever comply with his obligation to provide a comprehensive statement of his affairs, outlining his assets and liabilities, income and expenses. Over the years that followed, Mr Drever failed to provide a satisfactory statement, committing an offence under ss 67(1) and 433(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 2006.3…

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 Drever v The King

Details

AGLC: Drever v The King [2025] NZHC 1245
Case: [2025] NZHC 1245
Decision Date: 20 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aaron Carl Drever appealed against a 15-month prison sentence imposed by the District Court for his unlawful conduct as a bankrupt. Drever contended that the sentence should have been home detention rather than imprisonment. The appeal centred on whether the sentencing judge erred in not opting for home detention instead of imprisonment, despite acknowledging the appropriate duration of a prison sentence. The court had to determine whether the judge correctly assessed the rehabilitative potential of home detention against other sentencing objectives.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentencing judge made an error in not imposing a sentence of home detention. Drever's counsel argued that the judge overemphasised deterrence and failed to sufficiently consider the rehabilitative potential of home detention, as required by the Sentencing Act. The court had to assess whether the judge made a principled choice between the two forms of sentence and whether there were particular circumstances that made imprisonment disproportionately severe.

The High Court found no error in the judge's decision. The court shared the sentencing judge's view that Drever exhibited a remarkable lack of insight, understanding, or remorse, and his mindset made it inappropriate to prioritise rehabilitative possibilities over other sentencing purposes. The court distinguished this case from Henderson v R, where a prison sentence was commuted to home detention due to the strongly rehabilitative approach taken. The High Court concluded that Drever's custodial arrangements did not give rise to disproportionately severe consequences that would offset the sentencing priorities.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of 15 months' imprisonment was upheld.

Orders