Reynolds v Police - [2025] NZHC 1483

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2025-425-000008

[2025] NZHC 1483

BETWEEN
ETHAN ARTHUR REYNOLDS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 June 2025

Appearances:

J A T Ross for Appellant

M B Brownlie for Respondent

Judgment:

6 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 June 2025 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

REYNOLDS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1483 [6 June 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Reynolds appeals his sentence of 19 months’ imprisonment imposed on his tenth conviction for driving while disqualified, and charges of possession of a restricted weapon, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug utensils.1

[2] Mr Reynolds says the sentence is manifestly excessive. He argues the starting point of 15 months on the driving while disqualified was out of range and the uplifts applied for the remaining offending and for Mr Reynolds’ history of illegal possession of weapons were, in the circumstances, excessive.

Offending

[3] As noted, the driving while disqualified was Mr Reynolds tenth such conviction and the seventh in the aggravated form (for a third or subsequent offence).2

[4] This occurred on 17 September 2024: Mr Reynolds had been disqualified in June. Police saw his vehicle approaching an intersection in Invercargill, before Mr Reynolds completed a U-turn onto Brooke Street. As police entered that street, they observed Mr Reynolds parking the vehicle outside an associate’s address. He admitted driving, stating he had just changed the tyre and was testing it.

[5] The offending involving drugs and weapons occurred on 17 November 2024. Mr Reynolds was at an Invercargill hotel.

[6] Cleaning staff observed a methamphetamine pipe and what was described as a pistol in his room. Police were called. They executed a power of search without warrant, of Mr Reynolds, his vehicle and his hotel room. Police found a plastic bag containing 0.38 grams of methamphetamine, five pipes for the use of methamphetamine, a stun gun taser and a replica pistol. Mr Reynolds was charged

1 Police v Reynolds [2025] NZDC 2889.
2 Land Transport Act, s 32(1)(a) and (4)—maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or $6,000 fine.

with unlawful possession of a restricted weapon,3 possession of methamphetamine4 and possession of utensils.5

Sentence indication

[7] At a case review hearing before Judge Walker, Mr Reynolds requested a sentence indication on the restricted weapon charge. The Judge indicated six-months’ imprisonment for that charge.

[8] Counsel for Mr Reynolds, Mr Ross, submits this was given as an indication of the lead charge. Ordinarily, this would suggest that term would be the lengthiest in any multiple charge sentencing outcome. As explained below, this was not the case in the sentence ultimately imposed where the aggravated disqualified driving was adopted as the lead offending.

[9] I note that while he relies on the indication to challenge the six-month sentencing uplift applied for that offending, Mr Ross does not suggest 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reynolds 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 1483
Decision Date: 6 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ethan Arthur Reynolds appeals his sentence of 19 months’ imprisonment imposed for his tenth conviction of driving while disqualified, and charges of possession of a restricted weapon, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug utensils. Reynolds argues the sentence is manifestly excessive. The court first considered whether the starting point of 15 months for the disqualified driving was out of range. The court concluded that the starting point was not manifestly excessive, finding that the recency and number of Reynolds’ previous convictions justified the starting point. The court also found the six-month uplift for the charge of possession of a restricted weapon was within range, and the two-month uplift for previous history was proportionate and available. Finally, the court concluded that the totality of the sentence, while on the sterner side, was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders