Ward v The King - [2025] NZHC 167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-409-204

[2025] NZHC 167

BETWEEN
JORDAN PAUL WARD

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 13 February 2025

Appearances:

M Starling for Appellant

A M Harvey for Respondent

Judgment:

13 February 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(appeal against sentence)

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

WARD v R [2025] NZHC 167 [13 February 2025]

Introduction

[1] Jordan Ward pleaded guilty to two charges of unlawfully possessing firearms (representative),1 two charges of unlawfully possessing ammunition2 and one charge of possessing an offensive weapon.3 On 14 August 2024, he was sentenced by Judge Duggan to 27 months’ imprisonment.4 He appeals this sentence on the grounds it was manifestly excessive.

Facts

[2]The District Court Judge summarised the offending in these terms:

[7] To make things more complicated or more serious, there are two parts to your offending.

[8] The first part relates to the firearms and the ammunition that you unlawfully had in the car that you were in, at 3.20 am on the morning of 10 February. More particularly, you had a firearm that was under your driver’s seat, then on the back seat there was a bag that contained an assault rifle, with five rounds of ammunition, and you had in your pocket another five rounds of ammunition. The police also found (but this is less significant compared to the firearms) a large metal file which is where the possession of an offensive weapon charge comes from. In total you had two firearms, one an assault-style firearm, and ten rounds of ammunition, and the file.

[9] You were arrested, charged and then bailed after you appeared in court for those two firearms. And after you were bailed, you went home and contacted an associate or a friend and asked her to come and collect some stuff from your place. She collected a pistol that was loaded with a round, four other unloaded pistols, a shotgun, and over 100 firearm parts.

[3] Each of the firearms in the vehicle search were 3D printed, as were the four pistols, one shotgun and the firearm parts located at the associate’s address.

District Court Decision

[4] The Judge adopted a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment for the firearms and ammunition found in the car, taking into account the aggravating factors that there was a pistol under Mr Ward’s seat for ready access and an assault weapon and ammunition on the back seat. A starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment was

1      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1); maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment or $5000.
2      Section 51; maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment or $4000.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(a); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
4      Police v Ward [2024] NZDC 19301.

adopted for the second set of charges, being the firearms, parts and ammunition that Mr Ward arranged for his associate…

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 Ward v The King

Details

AGLC: Ward v The King [2025] NZHC 167
Case: [2025] NZHC 167
Decision Date: 13 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jordan Paul Ward appeals his sentence of 27 months' imprisonment, imposed by Judge Duggan, for multiple charges of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. The appeal, heard by Eaton J, argues that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The District Court had found Ward guilty of possessing multiple firearms, ammunition, and an offensive weapon. The offending was divided into two parts: the first involving firearms and ammunition found in his vehicle, and the second involving additional firearms and parts arranged for collection by an associate post-arrest. The District Court adopted a starting point of 30 months for the first set of charges and 30 months for the second, adjusted for guilty pleas and other factors to a final sentence of 27 months.

The appeal raises questions about the starting point and process used by the District Court in determining the sentence. Ward's counsel argues that the starting point was too high and should have been adjusted differently. The Crown contends that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the charges and the aggravating factors. Eaton J considered the seriousness of Ward's offences, noting the number and accessibility of firearms, the presence of live ammunition, and the fact that Ward attempted to conceal further firearms post-arrest. The Judge also noted that Ward's firearms were 3D printed, which, while not argued in submissions, could further aggravate the offending.

After considering the submissions and relevant authorities, Eaton J concluded that the starting point adopted by the District Court was appropriate, and the final sentence did not exceed the range that could be justified by accepted sentencing principles. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

...................................................Eaton J

Orders