Su'a v The King - [2025] NZHC 2775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000256

[2025] NZHC 2775

BETWEEN
SALEC DAVID SU’A

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 22 September 2025

Counsel:

H-A Cherrington for Appellant RG Hayden for Crown

Judgment:

24 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 24 September 2025 at 10 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland. H-A Cherrington, Auckland.

SU’A v R [2025] NZHC 2775 [24 September 2025]

A narrow appeal

[1] Salec Su’a received a sentence of two years and eight months’ imprisonment for dealing in Class A and B controlled drugs, and possession for supply.1 Mr Su’a appeals that sentence. His appeal must be allowed if there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed.2 The conventional test is whether the sentence is manifestly excessive.3 These broad statements of principle conceal a very narrow issue: did the Judge err to decline credit for Mr Su’a’s alleged addiction to cocaine?

Background

[2] On 26 October 2023, Police executed a search warrant at Mr Su’a’s home. They found 10 grams of cocaine in several zip lock bags and three mobile phones. They also found digital scales, $590 in cash, and benzocaine. Analysis of the mobile phones revealed:

(a)An offer by Mr Su’a to supply the Class A controlled drug cocaine and the Class B controlled drug MDMA on or about 16 September 2023.

(b)At least nine occasions of supply, or offers to supply, cocaine between 22 September and 23 October 2023.

[3] On the first day of his trial, Mr Su’a pleaded guilty to four charges of dealing with controlled drugs, including one representative charge, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Three charges concerned cocaine; the other one, MDMA. The agreed summary of facts records, “It is estimated Mr Su’a supplied at least 32 grams of cocaine and offered to supply at least two grams of cocaine.”

1      R v Sua [2025] NZDC 10154.
2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
3      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [33]–[35].

[4] Judge B A Gibson adopted a global starting point of 38 months’ imprisonment and deducted 10 percent for Mr Su’a’s belated guilty pleas. The Judge also discounted the sentence by five percent in recognition of Mr Su’a’s rehabilitative efforts in relation to alcohol. The Judge declined to discount the sentence further based on Mr Su’a’s background or his alleged addiction to cocaine:

[6] The pre-sentence report notes that you ran into some old associates from Australia who had been deported, that you began drinking each week. One thing led to another and you began using cocaine and that then led into the offending. But your previous history in Australia does not reveal any issues with drug offending and not only that you appear to have been well brought up in contrast to many people who appear on these sort of charges…

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 Su'a v The King

Details

AGLC: Su'a v The King [2025] NZHC 2775
Case: [2025] NZHC 2775
Decision Date: 24 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Salec Su’a was convicted of dealing in Class A and B controlled drugs, as well as possession for supply. He was sentenced to two years and eight months' imprisonment. Su’a appealed this sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge erred by not granting him credit for his alleged addiction to cocaine. The appeal raised a narrow issue: whether the judge erred in declining to give credit for Su’a’s alleged addiction.

The court considered the evidence and arguments presented. Su’a claimed that he was addicted to cocaine and that his offending was to fund his addiction. However, the court found that the evidence did not clearly support Su’a’s claim of a cocaine addiction. His criminal history did not indicate drug addiction, he did not tell police that his offending was to fund an addiction, and the pre-sentence report did not support addiction. While the report did indicate an alcohol problem, this did not clearly mitigate the offending. The court concluded that there was no error in the sentence, and the appeal was dismissed.

The court found that the sentence of two years and eight months' imprisonment was appropriate, and dismissed the appeal. The original sentence was upheld. Su’a was not granted a new sentence.

Orders