King v Police
[2025] NZHC 3142
•21 October 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CRI-2025-485-57
[2025] NZHC 3142
KONAN JOSEPH KING v
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Hearing: 21 October 2025 Counsel:
K Pascoe for Appellant P M Lange for Crown
Judgment:
21 October 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J
[Sentence appeal]
Introduction
[1] On 28 July 2025, the appellant, Mr Konan King was sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment1 after pleading guilty to charges of offering to supply methamphetamine, a Class A drug,2 offering to supply GHB, a Class B drug,3 and possessing cannabis with intent to supply.4 Mr King appeals that decision on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. Mr King’s counsel, Ms Pascoe, argues that the Judge adopted an excessive starting point and gave insufficient allowance for Mr King’s guilty plea and personal circumstances, in particular his addiction to
1 New Zealand Police v King [2025] NZDC 19154 [Decision under appeal].
2 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a) and sch 1; maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
3 Sections 6(1)(c) and (2)(b) and sch 2; maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
4 Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(c) and sch 3, and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1); maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment.
KING v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 3142 [21 October 2025]
methamphetamine. Ms Pascoe suggests that the end sentence should be less than two years’ imprisonment.
Background
Offending
[2] Mr King’s offending came to light after Police conducted a search that led to their review of his phone data in mid-2024. Between 14 February and 6 June 2024, Mr King offered methamphetamine to customers on nine occasions over text message and social media. In total, the Police estimate Mr King did deals relating to 18.75 grams of methamphetamine with a total street value of approximately $5,250—not accounting for another three deals with an unknown weight and value. Between 22 April and 25 May 2024, Mr King offer to supply GHB on three separate occasions, with one confirmed deal of 25mls completed.
[3] On Friday 14 June 2024, the Police executed a search warrant at Mr King’s address, locating 64 grams of cannabis (some of which was packed into individual bags), empty point bags, numerous scales, and weights. Mr King’s partner at the time, XY, is the principal offender in respect of the possession of cannabis for supply.
[4]Mr King was on parole at the time of the offending.
Procedural background
[5] Mr King was given a sentence indication on 25 November 2024 by the sentencing Judge, Judge Grieg. The Judge indicated that he saw the global starting point as being “a little bit more” than 38 months, but that even with discounts the end sentence would not be below two and a half years’ imprisonment.
[6] Mr King declined the indication on 10 December 2024. On 14 January 2025, he sought a further adjournment to progress plea discussions. This led to the withdrawal of two minor charges5 and Mr King pleading guilty to the remaining three, more serious, charges on 28 January 2025.
5 Contravening a protection order by possessing a “slug gun” and failing to provide a PIN number
Criminal history and reports
[7] Mr King has an extensive criminal history which has resulted in some lengthy sentences of imprisonment. However, he has no previous drug dealing convictions. In the PAC report, the Corrections officer expressed the view that the risk of Mr King reoffending is high because he has fallen into a cycle of offending:
Due to the years of imprisonment he seems to have little ability to see himself living a crime-free lifestyle. Compounding this is that he has very little responsibilities outside of prison and so this makes him a little less concerned about going to prison. His risk of re-offending is assessed as high given his past behaviour. His risk of harm is moderate. He has serious violence offences in his history, however his risk of violence could be reducing with age, although under the influence of substances there is always the risk of harm increasing.
[8] The officer’s view was that Mr King lacked insight and remorse because he “just does not accept the harm that drugs do to himself and others”.
[9] An alcohol and drug report reveals that Mr King was exposed to drug use from a young age and has struggled with addiction since he was a teenager. The report describes his efforts to rehabilitate his addiction to drugs, which it noted have so far been unsuccessful. It is said that has partially been because Mr King’s social circle is made up mostly of drug users, although he does appear to have some prosocial and supportive whānau.
Decision under appeal
[10] The sentencing Judge reached a starting point of two years and 11 months’ (35 months’) imprisonment, calculated by taking an initial starting point of two years and nine months’ (33 months’) imprisonment on the charge of supplying methamphetamine and adding two months for the two remaining drug charges.6 He stated he was adding “six months” for the remaining drug charges but in fact he added only two.7
for his cell phone to Police.
6 Decision under appeal, above n 1, at [19]–[20].
7 At [20].
[11] He added a four-month uplift to reflect the fact that Mr King offended while on parole on other charges,8 and allowed a discount from the starting point for Mr King’s guilty plea of 15 per cent and a discount from the starting point of 10 per cent to reflect Mr King’s history of addiction.9
Approach on appeal
[12] In Tutakangahau v R, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a successful sentence appeal under s 250(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 requires both the identification of an error and the need for the appeal court to be satisfied that a different sentence “should” be imposed.10 The Court does not start afresh or simply substitute its own opinion for that of the original sentencer.11 Rather, the appellant must show there is a material error before the court goes on to form its own view of the appropriate sentence.12 The Court will not generally intervene unless a sentence is manifestly excessive13 and whether the sentence is manifestly excessive is to be assessed in terms of the final sentence imposed, rather than the process by which it was reached.14
[13] The appeal court cannot “tinker” or intervene with the end sentence if it is within range.15 In borderline cases, “the view of a sentencing Judge from the jurisdiction in which crimes of the type in issue are frequently tried, it is said, will assume greater weight”.16
Starting point
[14] Ms Pascoe, for Mr King, argues that the starting point reached of 39 months’ imprisonment was too high based on comparable case law. She does not object to the effective two-month uplift the Judge imposed on the secondary drug charges, but says the initial starting point taken for the lead charge of offering to supply methamphetamine was too high.
8 At [22].
9 At [21] and [23].
10 Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [26]–[27].
11 At [30].
12 At [30].
13 At [35].
14 At [30]–[36].
15 R v Boyd (2004) 21 CRNZ 169 (CA) at [38].
16 R v D (CA 253/2008) [2008] NZCA 267 at [66].
[15] The tariff judgment for methamphetamine offending is Zhang v R.17 There is no dispute that Mr King’s offending fell within band two of Zhang, which provides that a starting point of two to nine years’ imprisonment will be appropriate where the dealing involves between five and 250 grams of methamphetamine.18 Quantity is relevant because it provides a reasonable proxy for the social harm done by the drug and illicit gains made from its importation and sale.19 In Zhang, the Court of Appeal described three categories reflected the role an offender may have had in performing the offending: “lesser”, “significant”, and “leading”:20
Role Lesser Significant Leading 1. Performs a limited function under direction;
2. engaged by pressure, coercion, intimidation;
3. involvement through naivety or exploitation;
4. motivated solely or primarily by own
addiction;
5. little or no actual or
expected financial gain;
6. paid in drugs to feed own addiction or cash significantly disproportionate to quantity of drugs or risks involved;
7. no influence on those above in a chain;
8. little, if any, awareness or understanding of the scale of operation;
and/or
9. if own operation, solely or primarily for own or joint use on non-
commercial basis.
1. Operational or
management function in own operation or within a chain;
2. involves and/or directs others in the operation whether by pressure, influence, intimidation or reward;
3. motivated solely or primarily by financial or other advantage, whether or not operating alone;
4. actual or expected commercial profit; and/or
5. some awareness and understanding of scale of operation.
1. Directing or organising buying and selling on a commercial scale;
2. substantial links to, and influence on, others in a chain;
3. close links to original source;
4. expectation of substantial financial gain;
5. uses business as cover; and/or
6. abuses a position of trust or responsibility.
[16] There is also no dispute that Mr King’s role lay somewhere between “lesser” and “significant”, as the sentencing Judge found to be the case. Regardless, Ms Pascoe
17 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648.
18 At [125].
19 At [104].
20 At [126] and see [118].
submits that the initial starting point of two years and nine months’ imprisonment for the methamphetamine offending was too high, compared to other cases where similar or greater quantities of methamphetamine and a similar role in the offending attracted a lower starting point, of two and a half years’ imprisonment.21 In her view, the starting point should have been between two and two and a half years’ imprisonment.
[17] Counsel for the Crown (acting on the behalf of the New Zealand Police), Ms Lange, submits that the initial starting point was within range. She points to other cases where similar quantities of methamphetamine and a similar role in the offending attracted a higher starting point than that taken by the Judge here, of up to three years and three months’ imprisonment.22
[18] Having read the cases referred to by counsel, I am not persuaded that the initial starting point of two years and nine months’ imprisonment was out of range. Given the similarity to the facts in Bailey v R, where a starting point of three years and three months’ imprisonment was upheld on appeal, it is difficult to say that two years and nine months is too high.23 As in that case, around 18 grams of methamphetamine was involved and Mr King’s role here was, as both parties accept, between “lesser” and “significant”. Mr King’s texts reveal a significant number of transactions with different customers. He was a self-motivated dealer but did not have influence on those above in the supply chain. While his addiction undoubtedly played a role in his offending, it was not the sole or primary motivation because he also had some expectation of profit.
21 Tuuta v R [2019] NZHC 2788; and Tregoweth v R [2021] NZCA 311.
22 Keil v New Zealand Police [2020] NZHC 682; Bailey v R [2021] NZHC 2225; and Royal v R [2020] NZCA 129. Keil involved 18.5 grams of methamphetamine, with the defendant’s role assessed as “lesser” within the category of street level dealers—he had been found with electronic scales and $362 in cash along with the methamphetamine. The starting point of two and a half years’ imprisonment was not the subject of the appeal to the High Court. Bailey v R involved possession of 3.231 grams of methamphetamine and $3,530 in cash, where the defendant’s cell phone data showed he had offered to supply 15.5 grams of methamphetamine over a period of less than three months. The defendant was described as a street level dealer who was actively supplying and offering to supply to a number of different persons and the starting point of three years and three months’ imprisonment was upheld—although Doogue J did not accept that the defendant was dealing because of an addiction to methamphetamine, despite his use of it to “stay awake”. Royal v R involved 19.6 grams of methamphetamine, as well as $75,960 in cash and varying amounts of GBL, MDMA, LSD, morphine and cannabis. The defendant’s role was described as “significant” and the Court of Appeal noted that the methamphetamine offending alone would warrant a starting point of around four years’ imprisonment.
23 Bailey v R, above n 22.
[19] By comparison, Tuutu v R, a case referred to by Ms Pascoe, is less serious because the defendant had a role “towards the bottom” of the “lesser” category.24 The other case she refers to, Tregoweth v R, is not conclusive because it was an appeal focussed wholly on the appropriateness of a three-month uplift rather than the appropriateness of the starting point, which the Court did not comment on.25
[20] Finally, it is important to record that the effective two-month uplift for the remaining two drug charges was generous. Even if the initial starting point was too high, in my view it would have been cured by the generous uplift, remembering that the focus on appeal is on whether the end sentence is manifestly excessive, however it was reached.
Discounts
Guilty plea
[21] Ms Pascoe argues that the 15 per cent discount granted by the Judge for Mr King’s guilty plea should have been 25 per cent. She emphasises that Mr King sought to resolve matters throughout the proceedings and that he pleaded guilty quickly once the extraneous charges were dropped.
[22] While the discount I accept was arguably stern, I am not persuaded that the Judge erred in this respect. While Mr King was actively trying to resolve matters, he did not enter a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity. Similarly, while he pleaded guilty following the withdrawal of two charges, those two charges were minor. As the Crown has said, the Judge was entitled to assess the situation and find that, given the extended period during which plea negotiations took place and the strength of the case against Mr King, a higher discount was not justified.26 The question of what quantum of
24 Tuuta v R, above n 21, involved 16.3g of methamphetamine, with the defendant’s role being “towards the bottom” of the “lesser” category because it was “street level dealing”. The Judge found that two years and six month’s imprisonment was the maximum available starting point.
25 Tregoweth v R, above n 21, involved 40.3 grams of methamphetamine, with the defendant’s role unclear. The appeal focussed on whether a three-month uplift for smuggling methamphetamine into prison was appropriate when the facts did not establish any conscious decision to smuggle the methamphetamine into prison. The Court of Appeal found it was not, instead applying the initial starting point reached by the sentencing Judge of two years and six months’ imprisonment without commenting on its appropriateness.
26 See Glassie v R [2022] NZCA 556 at [45]–[46].
discount to award for a guilty plea is in this sense a matter of discretion for the sentencing Judge.27
Personal circumstances
[23] Ms Pascoe argues that the 10 per cent discount granted by the Judge for Mr King’s addiction issues and other personal circumstances was also insufficient. She says it should have been no less than 15 per cent.
[24] A defendant’s background may justify a discount if it helps to explain how they came to offend.28 The Court of Appeal has said that addiction is particularly relevant to methamphetamine offending because it can impair the rational choice to offend, which in turn undermines the deterrent effect of sentencing, and because it can add to the severity of a term of imprisonment on an offender.29
[25] I agree with the Crown that, while the discount could perhaps on one argument have been higher, the Judge did not err under this head. The Judge acknowledged that Mr King’s addiction issues and upbringing causatively contributed to his choice to deal methamphetamine by granting a 10 per cent discount. Ultimately, the quantum of such a discount is a matter of discretion for the sentencing Judge and, in my view, no error occurred here.
Conclusion on discounts
[26] Overall, I conclude that the Judge here did not err in applying the guilty plea discount of 15 per cent nor in applying the 10 per cent discount for Mr King’s addiction issues and background. While the discounts were not as generous as they could have been, they were not out of range.
27 Hessel v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 at [75].
28 Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509 at [109].
29 Zhang v R, above n 17, at [138] and [149].
Result
[27] For all these reasons, I decline this appeal. No error occurred here. The Judge did not err in setting the global starting point or in assessing the applicable discounts for Mr King. As such, the end sentence cannot be said to be manifestly excessive.
[28]The appeal is dismissed.
Gendall J
Solicitors:
Nicholsons Lawyers, New Plymouth C&M Legal, New Plymouth
0
12
0