Legal Research
Cases
Sutherland v Police

Sutherland v Police

Case [2025] NZHC 3201 24 October 2025

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Miscarriage of Justice

Causation

Negligence

Defence of Land and Buildings

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2025-488-16

[2025] NZHC 3201

BETWEEN
ALAN GORDON SUTHERLAND

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 July 2025 (further material received on 13 and 20 October 2025)

Appearances:

M Nicholls for the Appellant

J P Hamber for the Respondent

Judgment:

24 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

(Appeal against conviction)

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 October 2025 at 4:00 pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors / Counsel:
Mr M Nicholls, Martin Nicholls Ltd, Kerikeri
Mr J P Hamber, Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

SUTHERLAND v POLICE [2025] NZHC 3201 [24 October 2025]

[1] Mr Sutherland appeals his conviction for presenting a firearm without a lawful and sufficient purpose contrary to s 52(1) of the Arms Act 1983,1 following a judge-alone trial before Judge G Tomlinson in the District Court at Whangārei.2

The prosecution case

[2]The prosecution case was summarised in the police summary of facts.

[3]Mr Sutherland and Mr Robson are neighbours and known to each other.

[4] At approximately 12:30 pm on Tuesday 30 January 2024, Mr Robson went to Mr Sutherland’s house in Waipu. Mr Robson was going to discuss issues he was having with his septic pipe that runs through Mr Sutherland’s property.

[5] Mr Robson exited his vehicle and could see Mr Sutherland through the open kitchen window.

[6] As Mr Robson was about to discuss the issues, Mr Sutherland said, “you’re trespassing, fuck off”.

[7] As Mr Sutherland stood by the kitchen bench, he picked up a black pump action shotgun and pointed it towards the ground at a 45-degree angle, holding it in both hands.

[8] Mr Sutherland pulled the slide grip back and forward once to action the shotgun. As he did so, Mr Sutherland was looking directly at Mr Robson. Mr Sutherland’s actions made Mr Robson nervous due to his threatening behaviour.

[9]Mr Robson turned and walked back towards his vehicle.

[10] From inside the house Mr Sutherland said, “there’s a device in the pipe and I hope it goes off when you’re sitting on the toilet”.

1 Arms Act 1983, s 52. Maximum penalty six months imprisonment; or a fine not exceeding
$10,000.
2 New Zealand Police v Sutherland [2025] NZDC 1363.

[11]Mr Robson looked back and could still see Mr Sutherland looking at him.

[12]Mr Robson got into his vehicle and drove home.

District Court decision

[13] The Judge said the issue was whether, at the time Mr Robson visited, Mr Sutherland had in his hands the shotgun in question. Mr Sutherland denied holding or presenting a firearm and said it was never there. The Judge rejected his account as a lie. He accepted the account of Mr Robson as honest and reliable. The Judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Sutherland was holding his black shotgun. He was also satisfied that holding the shotgun, raising (though not pointing) it, actioning it and the words…

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 Sutherland v Police

Details

AGLC: Sutherland v Police [2025] NZHC 3201
Case: [2025] NZHC 3201
Decision Date: 24 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Alan Gordon Sutherland appealed against his conviction for presenting a firearm without a lawful and sufficient purpose under s 52(1) of the Arms Act 1983. Sutherland was convicted following a judge-alone trial in the District Court at Whangarei. The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in his assessment of the evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The appeal court had to determine if there was a reasonable possibility that another verdict would have been reached or if the trial was unfair.

The court examined several arguments raised by Sutherland, including whether the trial judge erred in finding that Sutherland presented a firearm, whether Sutherland's self-representation at trial prejudiced his case, and if the judge failed to provide reasons regarding the lack of a lawful and sufficient purpose. The court also considered whether Sutherland had a lawful and sufficient purpose when he presented the firearm.

The court found that the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, particularly the credibility of the witnesses, was not erroneous. The judge's decision that Sutherland presented a firearm was based on the witness Robson's testimony, which the court found credible. Regarding the lawful and sufficient purpose, the court held that this was a defence requiring an evidential foundation, which Sutherland had not provided at trial. Therefore, the judge did not err in not providing reasons for this aspect. Lastly, the court found that Sutherland's argument about having a lawful and sufficient purpose was not supported by the evidence and did not amount to a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming Sutherland's conviction.

Orders