Legal Research
Cases
Evans v The King

Evans v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 2815 26 September 2025

Unlawful Possession of a Firearm

Unlawful Possession of Ammunition

Limitation Periods

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2025-419-000075

CRI-2025-419-000076 [2025] NZHC 2815

BETWEEN
JASON EVANS

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 17 September 2025

Appearances:

J J Rhodes for Appellant

A S C Alcock for Respondent

Judgment:

26 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 September 2025 at 11am.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
J Rhodes, Auckland
Hamilton Legal Ltd, Hamilton

EVANS v R [2025] NZHC 2815 [26 September 2025]

Introduction

[1] Jason Evans appeals against the sentence imposed by Judge A I M Tompkins in the District Court at Hamilton on 21 July 2025 in relation to:1

(a)one charge of cultivation of cannabis (representative);2

(b)one charge of manufacturing cannabis oil;3

(c)two charges of possession of an explosive (ammunition);4

(d)one charge of possession of prescription medicines (steroids);5

(e)one charge of unlawful possession of a firearm6

(f)one charge of possession of a prohibited magazine;7

(g)one charge of unlawful possession of a non-prohibited magazine or part;8

(h)one charge of possession of cocaine (simpliciter);9 and

(i)one charge of possession of methamphetamine (simpliciter).10

1      R v Evans [2025] NZDC 17724.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9(1) and (2); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(b) and (2)(b); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
4      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b); maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine.
5      Medicines Act 1981, ss 43(1) and 78; maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a
$500 fine plus a further fine of $50 for every day or part-day during which the offence has continued.
6      Arms Act, s 45(1)(b); maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine.
7      Arms Act, s 50B; maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
8      Arms Act, s 22A; maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
9      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 7(1)(a) and (2)(a); maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment
and/or a $1,000 fine.
10     Misuse of Drugs Act, s 7(1)(a) and (2)(a); maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment
and/or a $1,000 fine.

Background

[2] Mr Evans built a structure in the swamp lands surrounding Lake Waahi and resided there for at least three weeks while he tended to 1,000 cannabis plants which were separated into six different plots. This was an operation that he was involved in with others but Mr Evans was the only person charged in respect of the cultivation of these particular plants.

[3] In February 2022, police located the cannabis plants after a police helicopter flew over the area. That is the obvious risk with large cannabis plantations outdoors. A small plantation of only a few plants for personal use is unlikely to attract such attention.

[4] As a result, a search warrant was executed at Mr Evans’ address, locating a number of items including cannabis oil, steroids and ammunition.

[5] In 2025, while Mr Evans was on bail for the 2022 offending, a fire was discovered at his bail address. Police were alerted due to the fire being…

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 Evans v The King

Details

AGLC: Evans v The King [2025] NZHC 2815
Case: [2025] NZHC 2815
Decision Date: 26 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jason Evans appeals against the sentence imposed by Judge Tompkins in the District Court at Hamilton on 21 July 2025. The appellant was convicted of multiple charges, including cultivation of cannabis, manufacturing cannabis oil, possession of firearms and ammunition, and possession of prescription medicines and prohibited drugs. The sentencing Judge set a starting point of two years for the cannabis cultivation, with uplifts and discounts resulting in an overall sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment. Evans argues that the uplifts applied to the starting point were too high and that the discounts were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal examines the appropriateness of the starting point and uplifts, considering the guidelines set out in R v Terewi. The Court acknowledges that the two-year starting point for the cannabis cultivation was lenient and lower than the available range, but it finds that the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court also considers the nine-month uplift for the 2025 offending, noting that the possession of an unlawful firearm and associated drug possession charges warranted a modest uplift. The Court concludes that the sentence, when tested against the Moses methodology, falls within the available range.

The Court finds that the sentence is not manifestly excessive and dismisses the appeal. The overall sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment is considered appropriate, taking into account the seriousness of the offending, the need for denunciation and deterrence, and the discounts applied for personal mitigating factors and time spent on electronically monitored bail. The Court emphasizes the importance of consistency with more recent cases and the need to address the issue of rising gun violence.

Orders