Legal Research
Cases
R v Meyer

R v Meyer

Case [2025] NZHC 2342 19 August 2025

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Breach of Contract

Unconscionable Conduct

Contempt of Court

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-004-9845

[2025] NZHC 2342

THE KING

v

ELIJAH MEYER and PATRICK LEONARDO LANGI

Hearing: 19 August 2025

Appearances:

B N Kirkpatrick for the Crown J C Harder for Mr Meyer

J J Rhodes and K E Tuialii for Mr Langi

Sentencing:

19 August 2025

SENTENCE OF GAULT J

Solicitors:
Mr M W Nathan and Mr B N Kirkpatrick, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland Mr A J Holland and Mr J C Harder, Barristers, Auckland
Mr J J Rhodes and Ms K E Tuialii, Barristers, Auckland

R v MEYER and LANGI [2025] NZHC 2342 [19 August 2025]

[1] Mr Meyer and Mr Langi, you appear for sentencing today having each pleaded guilty to two charges of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard,1 two charges of arson2 and one charge of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle.3

The offending

[2]I begin by setting out the facts of your offending.

[3] On the evening of 25 August 2023, you were involved in a series of events in Epsom and Hillsborough in Auckland that targeted relatives of Mr Slaimankhel, a patched Comanchero Motorcycle Club member who was incarcerated at the time and had tried to leave the gang. He was ordered to pay his way out of the gang but did not do so. Together, you planned and participated in retribution to send him a message.

[4] Mr Meyer, you were a nominee Comanchero member. Mr Langi, you were a patched member.

[5] On 10 August 2023, a Department of Corrections search in the cell of another Comanchero member found cell phone Google Maps searches of roads in Epsom and Hillsborough and notebook entries of Mr Slaimankhel’s family addresses there.

[6] On 15 August 2023, Mr Meyer, you were directed to conduct surveillance of Mr Slaimankhel’s family addresses in Epsom. You conducted surveillance and took photographs of these addresses. Mr Langi, your phone had screenshots of Maps searches of these Epsom addresses.

[7] On 18 August 2023, Mr Meyer, you were directed to, and did, conduct further surveillance of those family addresses in Epsom and Hillsborough. You conducted surveillance of the addresses and vehicles linked to the family over an extended period of time, taking eleven photographs and making detailed notes monitoring the movements of people around the addresses, including recording registration details of vehicles parked at the addresses or on the street. Seven of these vehicles were

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 198(2). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, ss 267(1)(b) and 66(2). Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, s 226(2). Maximum penalty: two years’ imprisonment.

registered directly to a member of the Slaimankhel family or a business they owned. You communicated your notes to unknown parties.

[8] On 25 August 2023, at around 7:00 pm, you both arrived at the Epsom addresses in a grey four-door vehicle. Mr Meyer, you and an unknown associate exited the vehicle…

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 R v Meyer

Details

AGLC: R v Meyer [2025] NZHC 2342
Case: [2025] NZHC 2342
Decision Date: 19 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendants, Mr Meyer and Mr Langi, faced sentencing for their involvement in a series of violent incidents targeting the family members of a former Comanchero Motorcycle Club member. The court presided over by Gault J addressed a range of charges including discharging firearms with reckless disregard, arson, and unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle. The legal issues involved determining appropriate starting points for each charge, considering aggravating and mitigating factors, and applying the principles of sentencing to arrive at a just outcome. The court meticulously evaluated the premeditated nature of the attacks, the gang affiliations of the defendants, and the harm caused to the victims. It also considered the defendants' backgrounds, previous convictions, and their respective roles within the gang. After balancing these factors, the court imposed sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crimes while also considering the defendants' personal circumstances and their guilty pleas. Mr Meyer was sentenced to four years and four months' imprisonment for the firearm charges, two years for the arson, and six months for unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, with all sentences to be served concurrently. Mr Langi received a sentence of four years and seven months for the firearm charges, two years for the arson, and six months for the unlawful entry into a motor vehicle, also to be served concurrently.

Orders