Manuel v The King - [2025] NZHC 895

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-60

CRI-2025-409-61 [2025] NZHC 895

BETWEEN
CADE MANUEL

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 10 April 2025

Appearances:

O K Jarvis and H L Beaven for Appellant P J Brand for Respondent

Judgment:

11 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

MANUEL v R [2025] NZHC 895 [11 April 2025]

Introduction

[1] On 25 February 2025 Cade Lee Manuel was sentenced by Judge Crosbie to two years and four months’ imprisonment following his guilty pleas to charges of possession of methamphetamine1 and a knife,2 the unlawful possession of a firearm 3 and a prohibited magazine4 and a breach of release conditions.5 On appeal he contends the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

Facts

[2] Mr Manuel is the respondent of a final protection order. A condition of that order prohibited his possession of weapons. Around 11.30 pm on 26 May 2024, Mr Manuel was stopped by police when driving. Police found a methamphetamine pipe in the driver’s door. A warrantless search for drugs revealed 3.19 grams of methamphetamine in Mr Manuel’s wallet and a flick knife in the boot of the car.

[3] The following day a search warrant was executed at Mr Manuel’s home address and police located a cut-down .22 semi-automatic in a backpack in the garage. In a box in the garage police found a 3D-printed .22 30 round magazine.

District Court Decision

[4] With reference to accountability, denunciation and deterrence, and comparison to other cases, the Judge imposed a starting point of two years’ imprisonment for the firearm and magazine offending. This was uplifted by three months for Mr Manuel’s possession of methamphetamine and a further month for the possession of a knife charge. An uplift of two months was applied for the breach of release conditions, bringing the total starting point to two years and six months.

[5] The Judge allowed a 20 per cent deduction for early guilty pleas and a further deduction of one month (3.3 per cent) to reflect Mr Manuel’s personal factors and the

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2); maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or
$1000 fine.
2      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 13A(1); maximum penalty
3      Arms Act 1983, ss 45(1) and 66; maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment or $5000 fine.
4      Sections 50B and 66; maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
5      Sentencing Act 2002, s 96(1); maximum penalty one year imprisonment or $2000 fine.

causal connection between his drug use and his possession of drugs. The Judge did not consider there to be a causal connection between Mr Manuel’s traumatic background and the firearms offending. The deductions allowed were offset against an uplift of three months (ten per cent) for Mr Manuel’s previous convictions, and two months (6.6 per cent) because of offending while subject to release…

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 Manuel v The King

Details

AGLC: Manuel v The King [2025] NZHC 895
Case: [2025] NZHC 895
Decision Date: 11 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the appeal of Cade Lee Manuel against his sentence was heard. Manuel had been sentenced to two years and four months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to charges including possession of methamphetamine, a knife, unlawful possession of a firearm, a prohibited magazine, and a breach of release conditions. The appeal centered on the contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court had to determine whether there was an error in the imposition of the sentence warranting a different sentence.

The court examined the legal issues presented by the appeal. The appeal was allowed as of right, and the court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles. The court noted that it would not intervene where the sentence was within the range that could be properly justified by accepted sentencing principles. The court would intervene only if the sentence being appealed was manifestly excessive and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles.

The court analyzed the arguments presented by the parties. The appellant argued that the uplifts imposed by the Judge were excessive, particularly due to double counting of offenses. The respondent argued that the uplifts were appropriate, and the overall sentence was within range. The court agreed with the appellant that there was some double counting in the uplifts, but it found that the starting point for the lead offending was within the available range, and any adjustment would be minor. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court did not find that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and therefore, the appeal was unsuccessful.

Orders