Legal Research
Cases
McDonald v The King

McDonald v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 3174 23 October 2025

Appeal

Sentencing

Remorse

Rehabilitative Sentence

Home Detention

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2025-485-045

[2025] NZHC 3174

BETWEEN
JAMES MOSES MCDONALD

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 16 October 2025

Appearances:

L A Scott for Appellant

I P L Barfucci for Respondent via VMR

Judgment:

23 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Appeal against sentence)

[1] James McDonald was sentenced in the District Court at Wellington on 27 June 2025 to two years and seven months’ imprisonment,1 on charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply,2 supply of methamphetamine,3 possession of cannabis for sale,4 theft,5 and receiving stolen property.6

[2] Mr McDonald appeals against his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle. In particular, he contends that insufficient discounts were applied for personal mitigating features, and an appropriate sentence would have

1      R v McDonald [2025] NZDC 19127 [judgment under appeal].
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a) — maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a) — maximum penalty life imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(c) — maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(b) — maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act, ss 246 and 247(a) — maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

MCDONALD v R [2025] NZHC 3174 [23 October 2025]

been no more than two years’ imprisonment, leaving open the possibility of electronically monitored sentences.

[3] The Crown opposes the appeal to the extent that it relates to rehabilitative prospects and addiction, and submits that sufficient discounts were applied for those factors. However, the Crown accepts that a greater discount could have been given for remorse.

Background

The offending

[4] On 10 March 2024, a vehicle took an enclosed trailer and its contents from Whanganui Hospital. Inside the trailer were two motorcycles and a large amount of riding and camping equipment. Later that night, Mr McDonald sent a video to an associate showing one of the motorcycles, valued at $8,000, stripped of its plastics. These events gave rise to the theft charge.

[5] On 27 May 2024, Mr McDonald was stopped while riding a stolen Kawasaki motorcycle with false registration plates. The motorcycle, valued at $17,000, had been roughly painted and had its engine and chassis numbers ground off. Upon his arrest, a search of Mr McDonald’s belongings revealed methamphetamine weighing a combined total of 58.62 grams,7 $755 cash, and various drug paraphernalia. This gave rise to the charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply and receiving stolen property (being the motorcycle).

[6] Subsequent analysis of Mr McDonald’s cell phone revealed evidence of 27 offers to supply a total of 53.25 grams of methamphetamine between February and May 2024, with a street value of $21,300. This gave rise to the charge of supply of methamphetamine. Additionally, text messages from May 2024 revealed four offers to sell a total of 476 grams of cannabis, with a street value of $5,950. This…

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 McDonald v The King

Details

AGLC: McDonald v The King [2025] NZHC 3174
Case: [2025] NZHC 3174
Decision Date: 23 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James McDonald appeals against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. He contends that insufficient discounts were applied for personal mitigating features, and an appropriate sentence would have been no more than two years’ imprisonment, leaving open the possibility of electronically monitored sentences. The Crown opposes the appeal to the extent that it relates to rehabilitative prospects and addiction, and submits that sufficient discounts were applied for those factors. However, the Crown accepts that a greater discount could have been given for remorse.

The sentencing Judge found that the methamphetamine offending fell towards the lower end of band two of the guideline judgment Zhang v R. The Judge considered that Mr McDonald’s role in the offending involved elements of both the “lesser” and “significant” categories, noting that he had been operating as a street dealer in relation to significant quantities of methamphetamine, and generating considerable income. While the offending was driven partly by addiction, it was also profit-driven. A starting point of three and a half years’ imprisonment was adopted for the methamphetamine charges. In relation to the cannabis charge, the Judge considered the relevant guideline judgment of R v Terewi, determining that the offending fell within category two. Taken on its own, that charge would have attracted a starting point of around 18 months, however the Judge considered an uplift of nine months’ imprisonment was appropriate having regard to the totality of the offending. A further uplift of six months was applied in respect of the theft and receiving charges (although noting that a starting point of 18 months would have been appropriate for that offending on its own). This resulted in an overall starting point of 57 months. The Judge then applied discounts for personal aggravating and mitigating factors. A 25 per cent reduction was then applied for Mr McDonald’s early guilty plea. A further five per cent discount was applied for his expression of remorse and offer of reparation, which he had begun paying in weekly instalments. In addition, the Judge considered a 15 per cent discount was appropriate for the role Mr McDonald’s methamphetamine addiction had played in his offending, and his rehabilitative prospects. These discounts brought the sentence to 34 months’ imprisonment, which was further reduced by three months to account for the eight months he had spent on electronically monitored bail (EM bail). Mr McDonald’s end sentence was therefore 31 months, or two years and seven months’ imprisonment.

The appeal is allowed. The sentence of two years and seven months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. That sentence is set aside and a sentence of 12 months’ home detention is imposed.

Orders