King v Police - [2025] NZHC 3142

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…

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 King v Police

Details

AGLC: King v Police [2025] NZHC 3142
Case: [2025] NZHC 3142
Decision Date: 21 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Konan Joseph King appeals against his sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment, imposed after he pleaded guilty to charges of offering to supply methamphetamine, offering to supply GHB, and possessing cannabis with intent to supply. King argues that the sentence was manifestly excessive, asserting that the Judge adopted an excessive starting point and insufficiently considered his guilty plea and personal circumstances, particularly his addiction to methamphetamine. The Crown submits that the sentence was appropriate and within range.

The court found that the initial starting point of two years and nine months' imprisonment for the methamphetamine charge was not out of range. The court compared the case to Bailey v R, where a similar quantity of methamphetamine and a similar role in the offending resulted in a higher starting point of three years and three months' imprisonment. The court determined that the initial starting point in this case was justified, despite the generous uplift for the remaining drug charges.

The court also considered the discounts for King's guilty plea and personal circumstances. The court found that the 15 per cent discount for the guilty plea, while arguably stern, was not erroneous. The court acknowledged that King had been actively trying to resolve matters and pleaded guilty following the withdrawal of two minor charges. Regarding the 10 per cent discount for King's addiction issues and background, the court concluded that while the discount could have been higher, it was not out of range. The court recognised that the sentencing Judge had acknowledged King's addiction issues and upbringing as causative factors in his offending.

The court concluded that no error occurred in setting the global starting point or in assessing the applicable discounts. The end sentence was not manifestly excessive, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders