Moore v Director Civil Aviation - [2025] NZHC 2942

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2025-483-000033

[2025] NZHC 2942

BETWEEN
DENNIS MOORE

Appellant

AND

DIRECTOR CIVIL AVIATION

Respondent

Hearing: 2 October 2025

Appearances:

M D McGhie for Appellant K E Bucher for Respondent

Judgment:

7 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1]On 16 July 2025, Judge Marinovich sentenced the appellant to a fine of

$14,750 on the following charges:1

(a)two charges of operating an aircraft without necessary aviation documents;2 and

(b)operating aircraft in a manner that caused unnecessary danger.3

[2]The appellant now appeals his sentence on the grounds that:

(a)the starting point was too high;

1      Civil Aviation Authority v Moore [2025] NZDC 17370.
2      Civil Aviation Act 1990, s 46 — maximum penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment or $10,000 fine.
3      Section 44 — maximum penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment or $10,000 fine.

MOORE v DIRECTOR CIVIL AVIATION [2025] NZHC 2942 [7 October 2025]

(b)the Judge failed to provide an allowance for totality; and

(c)the Judged erred in declining to consider an alternative sentence.

The offending

[3] The appellant had been rebuilding an aircraft since 2008. In October 2022, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) staff inspected the aircraft for the purpose of a Certificate of Airworthiness (COA). CAA staff provided the appellant with a list of 30 items to be rectified before another review could be carried out.

[4] On 23 March 2024, the appellant was the pilot-in-command and sole occupant of the aircraft. He flew the plane from Feilding Aerodrome for approximately 26 km before experiencing mechanical issues, and crash landed in a field approximately 1 km south of the Marton township. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair in the crash.

[5] The appellant has never held a Private Pilot License – Airplane (PPL-A) which is required under pt 61 r 61.105 of the Civil Aviation Rules 2023 (the Rules) to operate that aircraft. The aircraft did not have a current COA and was not in airworthy condition as required under pt 91 r 91.101 of the Rules.

[6] The appellant told CAA investigators that he undertook the flight as he was frustrated that the 100-hour inspection required to obtain a COA had taken more than 18 months.

District Court decision

[7]The Judge identified the following aggravating factors in the offending:

(a)Premeditation or knowledge — the appellant knew that he did not possess the appropriate pilot’s licence. He has previously been prosecuted under s 46 of the Act and knew that he was required to hold a PPL-A. The appellant knew the aircraft was not airworthy and that the aircraft required 40 hours of test flying.

(b)The appellant’s actions resulted in a relatively significant crash, close to the township of Marton. While the crash did not cause any deaths, the appellant suffered serious head, chest and leg injuries.

(c)The appellant posed a risk to himself but also to members of the public. The flight path was objectively dangerous. It crossed state highways, numerous farms, occupied…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Moore v Director Civil Aviation and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2942
Decision Date: 7 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Moore v Director Civil Aviation, the High Court of New Zealand considered an appeal by Dennis Moore against his sentence for operating an aircraft without necessary aviation documents and in a manner that caused unnecessary danger. The appellant argued that the starting point for his sentence was too high, the Judge failed to provide an allowance for totality, and erred in declining to consider an alternative sentence. The District Court had sentenced the appellant to a fine of $14,750, but the High Court found that the Judge made an arithmetical error in calculating the starting point. While the Court agreed that the starting point was appropriate, the arithmetical error meant the final sentence was higher than intended. The Court reduced the fine to $13,350, giving effect to the Judge's intentions, and dismissed the appeal on other grounds. The Court held that the Judge did not err in considering totality and that a fine was appropriate given the appellant's previous offending and disregard for aviation requirements.

Orders