The King v Jade Raymond Mellow - [2025] NZCA 449

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA145/2025

[2025] NZCA 449

BETWEEN
THE KING

Appellant

AND

JADE RAYMOND MELLOW

Respondent

Hearing: 25 August 2025

Court:

Whata, Downs and Isac JJ

Counsel:

B J Thompson for Appellant J W Howell for Respondent

Judgment:

12 September 2025 at 11:00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed.
B The sentence of five years and nine months’ imprisonment is quashed and replaced with a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of 50 per cent.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Downs J)

A Crown appeal

[1] Jade Mellow committed a host of serious offences, including using a firearm against police officers; aggravated burglary; kidnapping; and wounding with intent to injure. Mr Mellow was on bail and subject to release conditions (from prison) when

he committed the offending. The Crown contends Mr Mellow’s five-year, nine-month term of imprisonment is manifestly inadequate, and should be replaced with a seven-year, eight-month term, with a minimum period of 50 per cent.

Principle

^[2]The Court must allow the appeal if there was an error in the sentence, and a different sentence should be imposed.1 That said, Crown appeals are not for borderline cases.2 Considerations justifying an increase in sentence must be more compelling than those justifying a reduction.3

The offending

[3]The offending is best explained in bite-sized pieces.

Charges 1–4: unlawfully gets into motor vehicle;4 unlawful possession of a firearm;5 and using a firearm against a law enforcement officer (x 2)6

[4] At approximately 10 pm on 24 April 2024, Mr Mellow was in a stolen car parked on State Highway 30 in Edgecumbe. Mr Mellow had a cut-down .22 calibre rifle, with a magazine capable of holding multiple rounds of ammunition.

[5] Senior Constable Klaus Klar and Constable David Gillies were on duty, in uniform, and driving a marked police car. They noticed the stolen car, made a U-turn, and parked approximately one car-length behind it.

[6] Mr Mellow opened the driver’s door. He fired a shot, then a second. The officers heard a popping sound but did not immediately appreciate what it was. They drove alongside Mr Mellow’s car and turned on “takedown” lights. Mr Mellow

¹      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
²       R v Cargill [1990] 2 NZLR 138 (CA) at 140, recently cited in McCaslin-Whitehead v R [2023]
NZCA 259 at [29].
³       McCaslin-Whitehead v R, above n 2, at [31], citing R v Wihapi [1976] 1 NZLR 422 at 424; and
R v Donaldson (1997) 14 CRNZ 537 (CA) at 549–550.
⁴      Crimes Act 1961, s 226(2); maximum penalty, two years’ imprisonment.
⁵      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1); maximum penalty, four years’ imprisonment, $5,000 fine.
⁶      Crimes Act, s 198A(1); maximum penalty, 14 years’ imprisonment.

then pointed the firearm at them. The officers drove away, repositioned a few hundred metres away, and alerted police communications.

Charges 5–8: being unlawfully in an enclosed yard;7 burglary;8 wilful damage;9 and unlawfully…

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 The King v Jade Raymond Mellow 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] NZCA 449
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The King v Jade Raymond Mellow involved the Crown appealing against the sentence imposed on Mr Mellow, who was convicted of multiple serious offences including using a firearm against police officers, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, and wounding with intent to injure. The Crown argued that the five-year, nine-month term of imprisonment was manifestly inadequate and should be increased to seven years and eight months, with a minimum period of 50 per cent. The appeal court had to decide whether there was an error in the sentence that warranted a different sentence being imposed.

The court found that the Crown had not demonstrated that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and the Crown's appeal should not be allowed. The court held that the sentence was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offending. The court further held that the sentence should not be increased as the Crown had not shown that the offending was of such a serious nature that it warranted a higher sentence. The court also held that the Crown had not demonstrated that the sentence was inadequate in terms of achieving the purposes of sentencing.

The court found that the Crown had not demonstrated that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and the Crown's appeal should not be allowed. The court held that the sentence was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offending. The court further held that the sentence should not be increased as the Crown had not shown that the offending was of such a serious nature that it warranted a higher sentence. The court also held that the Crown had not demonstrated that the sentence was inadequate in terms of achieving the purposes of sentencing.

The court allowed the appeal and replaced the sentence of five years and nine months’ imprisonment with a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of 50 per cent. The court held that the sentence should be increased to ensure that the purposes of sentencing were achieved, particularly in terms of protecting the community from Mr Mellow’s increasingly erratic, violent, and dangerous offending.

Orders