Legal Research
Cases
Kee v The King

Kee v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 2478 28 August 2025

Sentencing

Limitation Periods

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2025-412-26 [2025] NZHC 2478

BETWEEN
MATTHEW EDWARD KEE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 25 August 2025

Appearances:

S A Saunderson-Warner for Appellant J C Collins for Respondent

Judgment:

28 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 August 2025 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

KEE v R [2025] NZHC 2478 [28 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] Matthew Kee appeals the sentence of 33 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Turner on 27 March 2025 for the following charges:1

(a)unlawful possession of a firearm;2

(b)unlawful possession of ammunition;3

(c)offering to supply a class A drug, namely methamphetamine (x 2);4

(d)offering to supply a class A drug, namely methamphetamine (representative);5

(e)possession of offensive weapon (x 2);6

(f)possession of a pipe for drug consumption (x 3);7 and

(g)possession of a class C drug, namely cannabis.8

Facts

[2] Mr Kee had final protection orders made against him on 25 August 2021 and 9 December 2021. A standard condition of a protection order is that the respondent must not possess or have under their control any weapon, including a firearm.

[3] In early April 2024, police sought to arrest Mr Kee for breaching a non-association release condition in relation to an ex-partner. On the evening of

1      R v Kee [2025] NZDC 6938.
2      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)—maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment or $5,000 fine.
3      Arms Act, s 22B—maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and subs (2)—maximum penalty life imprisonment.
5      Section 6(1)(c) and subs (2)—maximum penalty life imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(a)—maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment. The Judge indicated these were representative charges but that is not reflected on the charging documents or criminal history.
7      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 13(1)(a) and subs (3)—maximum penalty one years’ imprisonment or $500 fine.
8      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 7(1)(a) and subs (2)(b)—maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $500 fine.

6 April, Mr Kee was stopped by a police traffic stop and placed under arrest. At Mr Kee’s request, police turned off and secured his vehicle. Police observed a wooden club between the driver’s seat and driver’s door panel and conducted a search of the vehicle.

[4] A second large wooden club was found in the rear footwell along with a 50 centimetre machete, and four different knives—two in easy reach of the driver. Police also located a glass methamphetamine pipe. Police found eight rounds of 30-30 centre fire ammunition in the glove box and two rounds of .22 calibre rimfire ammunition elsewhere in the vehicle. Police also located a bag which contained
$1,600 in cash, five cell phones and one of the rounds of .22 ammunition. Police found a 30-30 rifle wrapped in a towel in the left compartment of the ute tray and a zip lock bag containing 27 grams 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 Kee v The King

Details

AGLC: Kee v The King [2025] NZHC 2478
Case: [2025] NZHC 2478
Decision Date: 28 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Edward Kee appeals the 33-month imprisonment sentence imposed on him by Judge Turner for charges including unlawful possession of a firearm, possession of ammunition, offering to supply methamphetamine, possession of knives, and possession of cannabis and drug paraphernalia. The appeal was heard on 25 August 2025, with Ms. Saunderson-Warner representing the appellant and Mr. Collins for the Crown. The court delivered its judgment on 28 August 2025.

The primary issue in the appeal was whether the starting point and overall deduction applied by the sentencing Judge were appropriate and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. Ms. Saunderson-Warner argued that the starting point was excessive, that the Judge applied an excessive uplift for Mr. Kee's prior convictions, and that insufficient credit was given for addiction and rehabilitative efforts. In contrast, Mr. Collins opposed the appeal, submitting that the starting point and overall deduction applied by the Judge were appropriate and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court found that the starting point of two years and three months' imprisonment was within the available range, taking into account the aggravating factors such as the possession of ammunition and the contemporaneous drug dealing activity. The court also found that the 15 per cent uplift for prior convictions was warranted due to Mr. Kee's history of recidivism and disregard for previous sentences. Furthermore, the court considered that the Judge's approach to deductions for addiction and rehabilitation was appropriate, given Mr. Kee's limited progress in rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it reflected Mr. Kee's persistent offending behavior.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders