Palmer v The King - [2025] NZHC 1537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-172

[2025] NZHC 1537

BETWEEN
BEVAN KENNETH PALMER

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 3 June 2025

Appearances:

H Laubscher for the appellant J T Lowyim for the respondent

Judgment:

12 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 June 2025 at 12.30 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
North Auckland Law Chambers, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

PALMER v R [2025] NZHC 1537 [12 June 2025]

[1] Mr Palmer appeals against a decision of Judge K Lummis in the District Court at Auckland dated 6 March 2025,1 sentencing him in relation to charges of cultivation of cannabis,2 possession of a non-prohibited firearm,3 and possession of ammunition.4 He pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to six months’ home detention.

The offending

[2] The following summary of Mr Palmer’s offending is taken from a summary of facts that was agreed between the parties.

[3] In December 2021, the Police commenced an investigation named Operation Bush. The investigation focused on the actions of an organised criminal group involved in the cultivation of cannabis. The Police executed a number of search warrants at addresses used to cultivate cannabis.

[4] On 14 July 2022, the Police executed a search warrant at the home of Mr Palmer and Amy Hodgson in Mamaranui. At the property, the Police located a sophisticated cannabis-cultivation operation in a large two-bay shed that contained around 53 cannabis plants. One of the rooms in the house had also been converted to cultivate cannabis but was not yet being used for that purpose.

[5] An individual, known to Mr Palmer only as Tommy, and his associates, set up the cannabis growing operation at the property. Mr Palmer and Ms Hodgson shared responsibility for the day-to-day care of the plants, while Tommy and his associates attended from time to time for the specific care required by the plants.

[6] Police also located within a locked safe in the bedroom of Mr Palmer and Ms Hodgson a 12-gauge over-under shotgun with wooden stock, a Remington 12- gauge pump-action shotgun with camouflage patterns, a Churchill single-barrelled shotgun, a .22 bolt-action rifle, a 12-gauge double-barrelled “Khan” shotgun, and a

1      R v Palmer [2025] NZDC 5299.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9. Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Arms Act 1983, s 20. Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $15,000.
4      Section 22B. Maximum penalty fine not exceeding $10,000.

.22 semi-automatic rifle with scope and suppressor. Police also located shotgun and
.22 calibre ammunition in a bedroom at the address.

[7] Neither Mr Palmer nor Ms Hodgson had a firearms licence at the time of the Police search.

[8]Mr Palmer fully cooperated and assisted the Police in their investigation.

Mr Palmer’s affidavit

[9] Mr Palmer swore an affidavit dated 16 October 2024 providing what he describes as background to his offending.

[10] In the…

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 Palmer v The King

Details

AGLC: Palmer v The King [2025] NZHC 1537
Case: [2025] NZHC 1537
Decision Date: 12 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bevan Kenneth Palmer appeals against his sentence in the District Court at Auckland for charges of cannabis cultivation, possession of a non-prohibited firearm, and possession of ammunition. He was sentenced to six months’ home detention after pleading guilty. The offending involved the discovery of a sophisticated cannabis-cultivation operation in a shed at his property, along with multiple firearms and ammunition. The court had to decide whether the sentence imposed was materially erroneous and manifestly excessive.

The court examined the sentencing principles and found that the Judge's starting point of 17 months was appropriate. The discount applied by the Judge, though debated, was considered sufficient, especially considering the mitigating factors in Palmer's affidavit, which were factored into the starting point. The court also found an error in the sentencing of Palmer's co-defendant, Ms. Hodgson, who received an incorrectly applied discount leading to a lower sentence than justified. Given these findings, the court concluded that the sentence imposed on Palmer was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the sentence is dismissed.

Orders