Moore v Police

Case [2025] NZHC 2038


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-114

[2025] NZHC 2038

BETWEEN

ADAM MOORE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 17 July 2025

Appearances:

D B Iremonger for Appellant L Fiennes for Respondent

Judgment:

23 July 2025


JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(appeal against sentence)


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

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

MOORE v POLICE [2025] NZHC 2038 [23 July 2025]

Introduction

[1]                 Adam Moore appeals a sentence of three years’ and 10 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Couch on 16 May 20251 following his guilty pleas to a charge of discharging a firearm with intent to intimidate,2 four charges of unlawful possession of two sawn off shotguns and ammunition,3 possession of an offensive weapon,4 cultivating cannabis5 and failing to provide a PIN code.6

Facts

[2]                 At approximately 8.41 pm on Monday 6 January 2025, Mr Moore was the passenger of a car in a North Canterbury residential area. It was school-holidays and still light outside. The car turned into the street of the victim’s home address. A member of the public called police to report erratic driving from a car described as driving in excess of the speed limit with the registration plates blacked out. The two occupants were said to be wearing balaclavas.

[3]                 The car stopped in front of the victim’s address. Mr Moore fired five shots from a 20-gauge shotgun at the victim’s house. The shots smashed a child’s bedroom window and impacted the garage door. The car drove off. At the time, Mr Moore was subject to electronic monitoring as part of his release conditions.

[4]                 On 14 January 2025, a search warrant was carried out at the address Mr Moore shared with his partner and her three-year-old daughter.

[5]                 In the garage, police located a hydroponic growing setup with 10 cannabis plants between 60 to 100 centimetres tall. Police located two semi-automatic shotguns (one 12-gauge and one 20-gauge) concealed in a luggage bag in the hallway next to the master bedroom. Each firearm was wrapped in a towel and had the barrel and stock cut down. In the same luggage bag, was a box of fourteen 20-gauge cartridges.


1      Police v Moore [2025] NZDC 10774.

2      Crimes Act 1961, s 308A—maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.

3      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)—maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment or $5,000 fine.

4      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(b)—maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.

5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9(1)—maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

6      Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 178 and 130(1)—maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.

The 20-gauge cartridge shells are a distinctive yellow colour of the same make as the ones left behind by Mr Moore after shooting at the address in North Canterbury. In the master bedroom, under a set of drawers, police found a single 12-gauge shotgun cartridge. In a separate bag in the hallway, an extendable baton…

Continue reading Moore v Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Moore v Police [2025] NZHC 2038
Case
[2025] NZHC 2038
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adam Moore appeals the sentence of three years and 10 months' imprisonment imposed by Judge Couch on 16 May 2025 following his guilty pleas to charges including discharging a firearm with intent to intimidate, unlawful possession of sawn-off shotguns and ammunition, possession of an offensive weapon, cultivating cannabis, and failing to provide a PIN code. The appeal concerns the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the District Court, specifically the uplifts applied for various charges. The High Court must determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles.

The court found that an uplift for the firearms and ammunition charges was appropriate given the seriousness of the unlawful possession, especially since one of the firearms found was likely the one used in the shooting. The court also found that the four-month uplift for cannabis cultivation was excessive, and that a one-month uplift was appropriate. Regarding the offensive weapon, the court found the nine-month uplift too high and that a six-month uplift was appropriate. The one-month uplift for failing to provide a PIN code was upheld as a reasonable reflection of that offence. The court concluded that the end sentence of three years and 10 months was not manifestly excessive, despite some over-sentenced starting points.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.