[1] Miha Te Kororia Kidd1 (age 28) was sentenced by Judge Harvey on 5 November 20242 to two years and three months’ imprisonment on 24 charges of possession of cannabis for supply.3

[2] The notice of appeal is out of time. Given Mr Kidd has had a change in counsel, and because of the merits of the appeal, I am satisfied it is in the interests of justice to allow the appeal out of time.

Facts

[3] On 8 February 2024, Mr Kidd was sentenced to 10 months of home detention including for possession for supply of cannabis plant and resin.

[4] On 31 May 2024, while Mr Kidd was on home detention at his Invercargill home address, police executed a search warrant at his house. Police located 9.7 grams of cannabis and $450 in cash. Police seized Mr Kidd’s phone to which he provided his passcode. Messaging on Mr Kidd’s phone evidenced possession and sale of cannabis from 2 December 2023 to 28 March 2024 during which time he was either on bail or on home detention.

[5] During this period, Mr Kidd’s messages confirmed his possession of cannabis of supply to associates on 98 occasions. Police estimate, using Mr Kidd’s minimum quantities and values listed on his phone for transactions, that the 98 occasions cover over 458 grams of cannabis with a value over $8,100.

Criminal history

[6] Mr Kidd has 17 previous convictions from 2016 (aged 18) to 2023, including five previous drug offences. Mr Kidd’s other offending includes driving offences, an assault and presenting an object like a firearm.

1      Also known by last name “Morrison”.
2      Police v Kidd [2024] NZDC 28489.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(f)—maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.

District Court decision

[7]The District Court Judge succinctly outlined Mr Kidd’s offending, noting:4

A real problem for you is that at the time of that dealing, or at least at the beginning, you were already on bail for previous dealing offences and then you were on home detention, and yet you still continued to deal in cannabis. You are a drug dealer, and it is not surprising that the pre-sentence report is relatively brief because it simply outlines for me the background and then recommends a term of imprisonment.

[8] The Judge determined three years’ imprisonment was appropriate and, after making deductions for Mr Kidd’s guilty plea (25 per cent), sentenced Mr Kidd to two years’ and three months’…

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 Kidd v Police

Details

AGLC: Kidd v Police [2025] NZHC 1580
Case: [2025] NZHC 1580
Decision Date: 13 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand addressed an appeal by Miha Te Kororia Kidd, who was sentenced to two years and three months' imprisonment for possession of cannabis for supply. The appeal against the sentence was out of time, but the court allowed it to proceed due to a change in counsel and the merits of the appeal. The primary legal issues were whether the starting point of the sentence was appropriate and whether the deductions for mitigating factors were sufficient. The appellant argued that the starting point was too high and the deductions were insufficient, leading to a manifestly excessive sentence. The respondent argued that the starting point was appropriate and that the mitigating factors did not warrant significant deductions.

The court found that a starting point of three years was manifestly excessive and reduced it to two years, with a six-month uplift for the fact that the offending occurred while the appellant was on bail and home detention. The court allowed additional evidence to be adduced on appeal, finding it in the interests of justice. The court accepted that the appellant had a challenging background, mental health issues, and was addicted to cannabis, warranting a 10 per cent deduction. Additionally, a five per cent deduction was allowed for the effects of parental incarceration on the appellant's young child. The total deductions amounted to 40 per cent, resulting in a final sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. The court found that a sentence of home detention was inappropriate given the appellant's history of reoffending.

The court granted leave to appeal out of time, allowed the additional evidence, and allowed the appeal. The sentence was quashed and substituted with 18 months' imprisonment.

Orders