IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WAIHARAKEKE ROHE
CRI-2025-406-000008
[2025] NZHC 2264
BETWEEN
BENJAMIN MITCHELL SHAW
Appellant
AND
THE KING
Respondent
Hearing:
30 July 2025
Counsel:
M Zintl for Appellant
J W N Cameron for Respondent
Judgment:
12 August 2025
JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J
(Appeal against sentence)
[1] Mr Shaw appeals a sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment for class A (LSD), B (MDMA) and C (cannabis and ketamine) drug dealing offences.1 He contends that the sentencing judge gave insufficient credit for personal mitigating factors.2 If Mr Shaw’s submissions are accepted, an end sentence of home detention would be available, and he submits that such a sentence should be imposed.
1 Supplying MDMA, offering to supply MDMA, possession of MDMA for supply, possession of cannabis for sale, possession of LSD for supply, offering to supply LSD, offering to supply cannabis to persons under 18 years of age, offering to sell cannabis, and offering to supply ketamine.
2 R v Shaw [2025] NZDC 13893 [Decision under appeal].
SHAW v R [2025] NZHC 2264 [12 August 2025]
Background
Sentence indication
[2] The offending occurred between August 2022–2023 when Mr Shaw was 20– 21 years of age. He was given a sentence indication on 7 November 2024, which he accepted. In giving the indication, Judge Mika summarised the offending as follows:3
(a)… between 21 and 24 August 2023, [Mr Shaw] placed MDMA into seven separate courier bags which were intercepted by New Zealand Post; a total of 110.83 grams of MDMA was found. Then on 24 August 2023, police searched [his] car and [his] home. In [his] car,
… police located 3.7 grams of MDMA, 80 grams of cannabis, and 150 tabs of LSD. At [his] home, police located 400 grams of MDMA, 38 grams of cannabis, and 30 tabs of LSD.
(b)Between September 2022 and April 2023, [he] offered to supply cannabis to three different young persons/children, aged 14, 15 and 17, on 30 separate occasions.
(c)Between December 2022 and February 2023, [he] offered to sell ketamine on three occasions.
(d)Between August 2022 and August 2023, [he] offered to sell cannabis to 131 people on 1,300 occasions.
(e)Between September 2022 and May 2023, [he] offered to sell MDMA to 16 people on 33 different occasions.
(f)Between February 2023 and August 2023, [he] offered to sell LSD to 16 people on 18 different occasions.
[3] The prosecution summary of facts recorded Mr Shaw’s comments that, although the cannabis dealing was his own enterprise, he had been asked by a third party to sell the MDMA and LSD but had not profited from it. He said he was supposed to have been paid in crypto currency but had not been paid. The third party was Hunter Cooper, whose sentence appeal was dismissed by Grice J in March 2025.4
[4] Judge Mika took the MDMA charges as the lead offending. Comparing the total quantity of MDMA seized (514.53 grams) with previous class…
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 Shaw v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Shaw v The King [2025] NZHC 2264
Case
[2025] NZHC 2264
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Shaw v The King saw Benjamin Mitchell Shaw appeal against a sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment for multiple drug dealing offences. Shaw argued that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently account for personal mitigating factors, which could have led to a sentence of home detention instead. The court examined the offending, which involved the supply and possession of MDMA, LSD, cannabis, and ketamine, as well as offering to supply these drugs to minors. The prosecution detailed the scale of Shaw's activities, while Shaw claimed he was acting on behalf of a third party without personal profit. The sentencing judge adopted a starting point of four years for the MDMA charges, adjusted for the totality principle and the defendant's role, resulting in a starting point of four years and three months. After considering mitigating factors such as youth, addiction, and time spent on bail, the final sentence was two years and six months' imprisonment. Shaw's appeal centred on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive given the mitigating factors. The court found that while another judge might have taken a more generous approach to the reductions for mitigating factors, the sentence imposed was within the range available to the sentencing judge and was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.