Sowman v The King - [2025] NZCA 559

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA315/2025
[2025] NZCA 559

BETWEEN	GRANT IAN SOWMAN Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	7 October 2025
Court:	Courtney, Venning and Osborne JJ
Counsel:	J W Wall for Appellant B D Tantrum and H J Bell for Respondent
Judgment:	22 October 2025 at 12 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Osborne J)

Mr Sowman was sentenced on 21 May 2025 after pleading guilty to
a charge of manufacturing methamphetamine.[1] He was sentenced to five years and
[1]Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a).
[2]R v Sowman [2025] NZDC 11308.
ten months’ imprisonment.[2]
Mr Sowman appeals his sentence. He submits it was manifestly excessive because the starting point adopted was too high and insufficient credit was given for his guilty plea.

Approach on appeal

An appeal against sentence may be brought as of right under s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. This Court must allow the appeal only if it is satisfied there has been an error in the sentence and that a different sentence ought to be imposed.[3] In the vast majority of cases, the court “will not intervene where the sentence is within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles”.[4] A sentence appeal “will almost always turn on a consideration of whether the final outcome is manifestly excessive”, rather than the “route by which the judge reached that outcome”.[5]

Law in relation to serious drug offending

[3]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).

[4]Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36].

[5]Ripia v R [2011] NZCA 101 at [15]. See also Kumar v R [2015] NZCA 460 at [81].

The guideline judgment for serious drug offending is Zhang v R.[6]It sets out a number of sentencing bands for methamphetamine offending. Most relevant in this case are:
(a)band three: less than 500 grams—six to 12 years; and
(b)band four: less than two kilograms—eight to 16 years.
[6]Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648 at [125].
The identification of bands based on quantity reflects the conclusion that quantity rather than anticipated monetary yield is the most helpful measure of culpability.[7] Quantity is the first determinant because of the potential harm to the community.[8]
[7]At [101].
[8]At [104].
The role of the offender—in other words, what they actually did—is a fundamental component of the gravity and culpability assessment.[9] The role in methamphetamine drug offending is, in Zhang, identified by reference to three categories, namely “lesser”, “significant”, and “leading”.[10] The Crown must prove any aggravating facts in dispute related to the offender’s part in the offence.[11]

The District Court decision

[9]Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509 at [63].

[10]Zhang v R, above n 6, at [126]. These categories were adjusted in Berkland v R, above n 9, at [71].

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 Sowman v The King

Details

AGLC: Sowman v The King [2025] NZCA 559
Case: [2025] NZCA 559
Decision Date: 22 October 2025 at 12 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sowman v The King, the appellant, Grant Ian Sowman, appealed his sentence for manufacturing methamphetamine, contending it was manifestly excessive. The District Court sentenced Mr Sowman to five years and ten months’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal for New Zealand was tasked with determining whether there was an error in the sentencing that warranted a different sentence.

The court assessed the starting point for sentencing and the credit for Mr Sowman’s guilty plea. The appeal court noted that the District Court had correctly identified Mr Sowman’s role as falling toward the lower end of the "significant" category, with a starting point of nine years’ imprisonment, which was within the appropriate range. The court also found the credit of 15 per cent for the guilty plea to be appropriate. The court further found that, even if there had been an error in the starting point or credit for the guilty plea, Mr Sowman's sentence was not manifestly excessive, as he received credit for personal history and rehabilitation efforts and no adjustment was made for other personal factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Sowman’s appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the District Court.

Final orders: The appeal is dismissed.

Orders