How v The King - [2025] NZHC 2396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2025-454-000016

CRI-2025-454-000017 [2025] NZHC 2396

BETWEEN
BERNARD GREGORY HOW

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 15 July 2025

Counsel:

E C Killeen for Appellant K S Barber for Respondent

Judgment:

21 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

(Appeal against sentence)

[1] Mr How was sentenced to 10 years, two months and two weeks’ imprisonment,1 having pleaded guilty to manufacturing and supplying significant amounts of methamphetamine,2 and driving charges.3 He appeals the sentence on the grounds that the Judge erred in not allowing the maximum reduction for Mr How’s guilty plea, and in refusing to allow further reductions for Mr How’s addiction, remorse and rehabilitative potential.

1      R v Dudley [2024] NZDC 24789.
2      The drug charges were manufacturing methamphetamine (Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(b) and (2); maximum penalty life imprisonment), supplying methamphetamine (s 6(1)(c) and (2); maximum penalty life imprisonment), conspiring to supply methamphetamine (s 6(2); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment), and possessing methamphetamine for supply (s 6(1)(f) and (2); maximum penalty life imprisonment).
3      The driving charges were dangerous driving (Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment) and driving with blood containing a controlled drug (s 58(1)(b); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment).

HOW v R [2025] NZHC 2396 [21 August 2025]

The offending

[2] The drug charges arose from an investigation between April and November 2022 into the supply of methamphetamine throughout the lower North Island.

[3] Mr How independently transported large quantities of cash to Auckland to pay for kilogram quantities of methamphetamine. Once arriving back in the lower North Island, he distributed large amounts of methamphetamine in five or 10 ounce quantities to dealers and provided the cash profits back to the principal offenders.

[4] When the Auckland source became problematic in October 2022, Mr How and his associates began manufacturing their own supply. They manufactured methamphetamine on four occasions. Mr How also leased a building in Palmerston North that was used to manufacture methamphetamine and store drugs, cash, and manufacturing equipment.

[5] Search warrants were executed on 8 November 2022, resulting in over 10 kilograms of methamphetamine being located and just over $560,000 cash seized.
14.2 kilograms of methamphetamine had been supplied prior to termination. Mr How was therefore involved in the supply, possession for supply and manufacture of 24 kilograms of methamphetamine.

[6] The driving charges arose on 15 September 2021. Mr How drove to a lifestyle property in Ashhurst where police were conducting a search. An officer signalled for him to stop. Mr How reversed his vehicle at speed and struck a metal bollard, flattening it, and drove back onto the road. An unmarked police car activated its lights and began to follow Mr How’s vehicle. The pursuing officer estimated that Mr How accelerated to in excess of 150 kilometres per hour in a 100 kilometres per hour zone, causing the officer to stop the pursuit.

[7] As…

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 How v The King

Details

AGLC: How v The King [2025] NZHC 2396
Case: [2025] NZHC 2396
Decision Date: 21 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Bernard Gregory How appealed against his sentence of 10 years, two months and two weeks' imprisonment for manufacturing and supplying significant amounts of methamphetamine and driving charges. How argued the Judge erred in not allowing the full 25% reduction for his guilty plea and in not allowing further reductions for his addiction, remorse, and rehabilitative potential. The appeal was filed six months late, but leave to appeal out of time was granted.

The court held that the 20% reduction for How's guilty plea was appropriate, as he pleaded guilty just two months before trial. The court noted that How could have pleaded guilty earlier if he had made a clear offer, and that the full 25% reduction was not available. The court also found that the 15% reduction for How's background and addiction was generous and that the overall reduction of 15% was within range. The court held that How's failure to complete the Bridge Programme and lack of evidence of genuine remorse did not compel a further reduction for rehabilitative potential and remorse. The court dismissed the appeal.

The final orders were that leave to appeal out of time was granted, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders