Randall v The King - [2025] NZHC 2332

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-144

[2025] NZHC 2332

BETWEEN
JONATHAN JAMES RANDALL

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 14 August 2025

Appearances:

T Aickin for Appellant

C M Hallaway for Respondent

Judgment:

18 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 August 2025 at 2.15 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

RANDALL v R [2025] NZHC 2332 [18 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] Jonathan James Randall pleaded guilty to possession of a Class A controlled drug for supply (namely methamphetamine)1 and possession of a pipe.2 On 21 May 2025, Judge Neave sentenced Mr Randall to three years’ imprisonment.3 He now appeals this sentence on the ground the Judge erred by not taking into account the time spent on electronically-monitored bail (EM bail).

District Court decision

[2] In sentencing Mr Randall on the charges, the Judge adopted a starting point of four years’ imprisonment. Deductions of 15 per cent were given for guilty pleas, 10 per cent for background factors including addiction, and 15 per cent for the breach of his rights given the search which located the evidence giving rise to the charges “to some extent, was illegal.”4 The Judge also adopted a 15 per cent uplift to reflect the appellant’s history of previous offending. The end sentence imposed was three years’ imprisonment.

Principles on appeal

[3] Appeals against sentence are allowed as of right by s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and must be determined in accordance with s 250. An appeal against sentence may be allowed by this Court only if it is satisfied that there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed.5 As the Court of Appeal observed in Tutakangahau v R, with reference to the lower court’s decision, a “court will not intervene where the sentence is within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles”.6 It is appropriate for this Court to intervene and substitute its own views only if the sentence being appealed is “manifestly excessive” and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles.7

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Section 13(1)(a) and (3); maximum penalty one year’ imprisonment.
3      R v Randall [2025] NZDC 11382.
4 At [15].
5      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 250(2) and 250(3).
6      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36].
7      Ripia v R [2011] NZCA 101 at [15].

Submissions

Appellant’s submissions

[4] The sole ground of appeal advanced by counsel for the appellant, Ms Aickin, concerns the failure by the sentencing Judge to take into account the time Mr Randall spent on EM bail. She explains that, according to the District Court records, the appellant was on EM bail between 14 December 2022 and 6 March 2024, 7 May 2024 and 24 June…

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 Randall v The King

Details

AGLC: Randall v The King [2025] NZHC 2332
Case: [2025] NZHC 2332
Decision Date: 18 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jonathan James Randall appeals against his sentence of three years' imprisonment imposed for possession of a Class A controlled drug for supply and possession of a pipe. The appeal focuses on whether the sentencing Judge erred by not taking into account the time spent on electronically-monitored bail (EM bail). Randall was on EM bail for a total of 19 months and 26 days, with four breaches occurring in the last two months. The key legal issue is whether the Judge was required to give a deduction for time spent on EM bail, considering the breaches. The court considered the principles outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002 and relevant case law. It noted that while there is no automatic right to a deduction for time on EM bail, a deduction is often given, ranging between 30 and 50 per cent. The court decided that a deduction of 30 per cent for the time spent on reasonably restrictive EM bail prior to the breaches was appropriate, equating to a deduction of six months. The court allowed the appeal, replacing the three-year sentence with a sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment. The sentence on the charge of possession of a pipe remains undisturbed.

Orders