Nuku v Police - [2025] NZHC 2865

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2025-483-34

[2025] NZHC 2865

BETWEEN
NATASHA NUKU

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 29 September 2025

Appearances:

A S C Brosnahan for Appellant A N Kearney for Respondent

Judgment:

30 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

[Sentencing appeal]

Introduction

[1] Natasha Nuku, the appellant, pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.1 She was sentenced on that charge to 27 months’ imprisonment on 30 July 2025.2

[2] Ms Nuku now appeals against her sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive. Her counsel, Mr Brosnahan, submits that Judge Andrée Wiltens erred in adopting an excessive starting point and giving insufficient consideration to Ms Nuku’s remorse and prospects of rehabilitation.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and (2).
2 Police v Nuku [2025] NZDC 19146 [Decision under appeal].

NUKU v POLICE [2025] NZHC 2865 [30 September 2025]

[3] The Police’s position on appeal is that, while sufficient credit was applied for personal mitigating features, the Court may find that the end sentence is manifestly excessive. This is because, the Police concede, the starting point adopted by the Judge was too high, and the Judge incorrectly applied the Moses sentencing methodology.3

Factual and procedural background

[4] On 19 June 2024, Ms Nuku was on prison release conditions for three firearms charges and one charge of possessing/using utensils for methamphetamine. Those conditions included a non-association order with an associate. Ms Nuku was located in the front seat of a vehicle with the associate, and a search of the vehicle located
3.17 grams of methamphetamine and drug dealing tools and paraphernalia. Ms Nuku pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for supply and breach of release conditions. On 8 October 2024, Judge Marinovich sentenced Ms Nuku to 11 months’ imprisonment.4

[5] By 10 March 2025, Ms Nuku was on release conditions at an address in Whanganui. A search warrant was carried out at the address. While sitting at the kitchen table, she removed a small plastic container from her property and attempted to discard it on the floor. The container included approximately 3.5 grams of methamphetamine.

[6] Ms Nuku was arrested. Two glass pipes were located on her person. A tick book with various names and amounts owed to her, a set of electronic scales, and new and used zip lock point bags were in her property.

[7] Ms Nuku pleaded not guilty at her first appearance. She entered a guilty plea at a case review hearing on 10 June 2025 (which, aside from bail hearings, was her second court appearance on the charge).

3 Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, [2020] 3 NZLR 583.
4 Police v Nuku [2024] NZDC 24611.

Decision under appeal

[8] Judge Andrée Wiltens noted the above facts and referred to the 3.5 grams of methamphetamine as “on one view, … not a lot; on another view, it is quite a bit, depends on…

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 Nuku v Police 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 2865
Decision Date: 30 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Natasha Nuku appeals against her sentence for possession of methamphetamine for supply. The appeal focuses on the alleged excessiveness of the sentence, which was 27 months' imprisonment. The appellant contends that the sentencing Judge erred in setting an excessively high starting point and failed to adequately consider her remorse and rehabilitation prospects. The Police accept that the starting point was too high but argue that the end sentence may still be considered appropriate. The issues before the court include whether the Judge correctly accounted for the appellant's previous offending and addiction, the appropriateness of the starting point, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court finds that the Judge erred in taking the appellant's previous offending and addiction into account when setting the starting point, and that the starting point of three years was excessive. The court also determines that the Judge erred in not giving credit for the appellant's remorse and personal mitigating factors. The court concludes that the end sentence of 27 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive and substitutes a sentence of 13 months' imprisonment.

The appeal is allowed and the sentence is substituted.

Orders