Legal Research
Cases
Timmerman v The King

Timmerman v The King

Case [2025] NZCA 604 18 November 2025

Miscarriage of Justice

Appeal

Misrepresentation

Unconscionable Conduct

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA276/2023
[2025] NZCA 604

BETWEEN	CORNELIS CHRISTIAAN TIMMERMAN Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	24 July 2025
Court:	Collins, Jagose and Gault JJ
Counsel:	J E L Carruthers for Appellant B J Thompson and B So for Respondent T Epati KC and J L Butcher as counsel to assist the Court
Judgment:	18 November 2025 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal out of time is granted.
BThe appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Gault J)

Introduction

Mr Timmerman seeks to appeal his convictions out of time, having pleaded guilty in December 2021 to the following charges in the High Court after a sentence indication:
(a)two charges of unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm;[1]
(b)four charges of unlawful possession of a prohibited magazine;[2]
(c)two charges of unlawful possession of explosives;[3] and
(d)one charge of trespass.[4]
[1]Arms Act 1983, s 50A and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1). Maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
[2]Arms Act, s 50B and Crimes Act, s 66(1). Maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
[3]Arms Act, s 45(1) and Crimes Act, s 66(1). Maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment.
[4]Trespass Act 1980, ss 3(1) and 11(2)(a). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $1,000.
Mr Timmerman says that, following demanding stints in custody and on electronically monitored (EM) bail, the indefinite adjournment of his trial,[5] and the dismissal of numerous of the charges he faced,[6] he accepted a sentence indication on what remained,[7] not because he accepted his guilt but to put an end to the proceedings, which had taken a serious toll on his physical and mental health.
[5]R v Timmerman HC Auckland CRI-2020-063-917, 4 November 2021 (Minute of Lang J).
[6]Timmerman v R HC Auckland CRI-2020-063-917, 11 November 2021 (Minute of Lang J); and Timmerman v R [2021] NZHC 3063.
[7]R v Timmerman [2021] NZHC 3287 [sentence indication].
Further, he says that the Crown’s inability to prove its case against his co‑defendant, Mr Simonsen, suggests there is substance to his defence.
In part, Mr Timmerman alleged trial counsel error. We heard oral evidence from Mr Timmerman and his trial counsel, Mr Gurnick.[8]

Background

[8]We also received an affidavit from Mr Timmerman’s co-defendant, Mr Simonsen.

The offending Mr Timmerman pleaded guilty to in December 2021 was conveniently set out in Lang J’s sentencing notes:[9]
[4] … on 10 March 2020 [Mr Timmerman] went to Rotorua Police Station and asked to speak to a police officer who was either not there or was unavailable. When [Mr Timmerman was] told [he was] not able to speak to the police officer, [he] became angry and began to act in a disorderly manner. The police asked [him] to leave the police station on several occasions. When [he] refused to do so [he was] arrested and charged with trespass. [He] began resisting arrest and [he was] charged with that as well. [He was] then held…

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 Timmerman v The King

Details

AGLC: Timmerman v The King [2025] NZCA 604
Case: [2025] NZCA 604
Decision Date: 18 November 2025 at 9.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was asked to decide on an appeal by Cornelis Christiaan Timmerman against his convictions for unlawful possession of prohibited firearms, prohibited magazines, explosives, and trespass. Timmerman argued that his guilty plea was not informed due to his poor health and the stress caused by the prolonged legal proceedings. The Crown opposed the extension of time for the appeal, arguing that Timmerman's health issues were not as severe as claimed and that the appeal was filed late due to new evidence from the trial of his co-defendant, Simonsen. The court had to determine whether the appeal could be heard out of time and whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted overturning Timmerman's convictions.

The court granted leave to appeal out of time, considering the relevance of Timmerman's health issues and the emerging evidence from Simonsen's trial. The court examined the principles governing appeals following guilty pleas, emphasizing the exceptional circumstances required to overturn such convictions. The court identified several categories where a miscarriage of justice might occur, including incorrect advice from trial counsel, but noted that these categories were not exhaustive. The court also discussed the role of trial counsel in providing appropriate advice to enable informed decisions.

The court analyzed Timmerman's grounds for appeal, focusing on his claim of innocence and the impact of his health issues on his decision to plead guilty. The court found that Timmerman's trial counsel had acted appropriately and that Timmerman made a rational and informed decision to plead guilty despite his health issues and the trial delay. The court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify overturning Timmerman's convictions, even considering the outcome of Simonsen's trial.

Leave to appeal out of time was granted, but the appeal was dismissed as there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant overturning Timmerman's convictions.

Orders