Lee-Panting v The King - [2025] NZHC 2480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2025-412-20

[2025] NZHC 2480

BETWEEN
NATHAN ALEC LEE-PANTING

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

CRI-2025-412-21

BETWEEN

NATHAN ALEC LEE-PANTING
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

Reissued:

31 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 August 2025 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

LEE-PANTING v R [2025] NZHC 2480 [28 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] Nathan Lee-Panting has been convicted of several drug-related offences. He pleaded guilty to possession of a Class A drug (LSD) for supply,1 possession of a Class A drug (methamphetamine),2 possession of cannabis,3 two charges of failing to assist with a search power,4 two charges of wilful damage5 and one of speaking threateningly.6

[2] On 7 March 2025, he was sentenced by Judge Turner to two years and seven months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay reparations of $383.7 Mr Lee-Panting now appeals this sentence on the ground that no credits were allowed for personal mitigating factors, resulting in a manifestly excessive end sentence.

Facts

Crown charges

[3] At about 12.20 am on 20 September 2024, police stopped a vehicle. A strong odour of cannabis was noted coming from the car and a warrantless search then occurred. The appellant was in the front passenger seat. A black bag was found under the passenger seat later found to contain 125 grams of cannabis in several plastic bags; a cannabis joint; a separate plastic bag containing 3.57 grams of methamphetamine; and a plastic bag containing 45 tabs of LSD. Also in the bag was a set of digital scales.

[4] Police also found what they believed to be a tick-book containing names, phone numbers and bank account details of various persons. Three phones were found in the vehicle, one in the possession of the driver, Mr Durst; one in the appellant’s possession; and a third in the car itself. Both occupants were asked to supply the PIN numbers for the phones and both refused. Both occupants were arrested. Mr Durst produced further cannabis to police and $250 was found in a wallet in the appellant’s

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Section 7(1)(a) and (2)(a); maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or $1000 fine.
3      Section 7(1)(a) and (2)(b); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $500 fine.
4      Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 178; maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
5      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
6      Section 21(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $2000 fine.
7      R v Lee-Panting [2025] NZDC 5261.

possession. The phones seized were later analysed. During this process, within the phone case, police found further small plastic bags containing 182 tabs of LSD. Forensic analysis on the phones was conducted that attributed…

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 Lee-Panting v The King

Details

AGLC: Lee-Panting v The King [2025] NZHC 2480
Case: [2025] NZHC 2480
Decision Date: 28 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nathan Lee-Panting appeals his sentence for multiple drug-related offences and other criminal activities, arguing that the District Court failed to consider personal mitigating factors, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. The High Court of New Zealand reviews the sentence, assessing whether the District Court made an error in imposing the sentence and if a different sentence should be imposed. The primary issues revolve around whether credits should have been given for personal mitigating factors, specifically the appellant's background, addiction, the impact of parental incarceration on his children, and time spent on bail.

The court finds that the appellant's background and substance use issues warranted a 10 per cent credit. Although the appellant's addiction was not directly causative of his intent to supply LSD, his difficult upbringing and unresolved trauma did contribute to his offending. The court does not allow a credit for the impact of parental incarceration on his children, as the evidence suggests that the appellant's inability to see his children resulted from his own actions, particularly inter-familial violence in their presence. The court also declines to credit time spent on bail, as the bail conditions were not highly restrictive and there was a breach of the curfew condition. While the starting point for the lead charge of LSD possession for supply was generous, the court allows a 10 per cent deduction for personal mitigating factors, resulting in a revised sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment.

The appeal is allowed, and the original sentence of 31 months’ imprisonment is replaced with a sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment for the charge of possession of LSD for supply. All other aspects of the sentence remain unchanged.

Orders