White v The King - [2025] NZHC 1296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-000079

CRI-2025-409-000080 [2025] NZHC 1296

BETWEEN
JESSE WHITE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 22 May 2025 (via AVL)

Counsel

E Yu (appearing on behalf of J D Lucas) for Appellant K N Stitely for Respondent

Judgment:

26 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

(Appeal against sentence)

[1] Mr White was sentenced to four years and 10 months’ imprisonment for serious drug dealing offences and for involvement in a violent confrontation between rival gangs at a holiday park.1 He pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon (as a party),2 rioting,3 possession of cocaine for supply,4 offering to supply cocaine,5 supplying cocaine,6 offering to supply MDMA7, suppling MDMA8 and failing to provide a PIN number for his phone (x 2).9

1      R v White [2025] NZDC 4922.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 202C(1)(a) and 66(1)(b); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 87; maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
5      Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(a); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
6      Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(a); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
7      Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(b); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
8      Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(b); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
9      Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 178; maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.

WHITE v R [2025] NZHC 1296 [26 May 2025]

[2] He appeals his sentence on the grounds that the starting point for the rioting and assault with a weapon charges (the violence offending) was too high, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence.

The offending

[3] The violence offending relates to an incident on 18 February 2024 at the Tasman Holiday Park in Christchurch. In the late afternoon, three Mongols gang members, including Mr White (a prospecting member of the gang), are seen on CCTV entering the Tasman Holiday park, looking around and leaving. Mr White again enters the holiday park with a group of Mongols members at around 5.05 pm. They look around the area and leave again.

[4] At about 5.20 pm, a group of Bandidos Motorcycle Club members (Bandidos members) appeared to be leaving the park, with two members on motorcycles and two in a car. A member on foot attempts to enter a code to raise a barrier arm to allow the group to exit but stops when he sees a group of Mongols members approaching, including Mr White. The group of Mongols members lean on the barrier arm and stare at the group of Bandidos members, before two of Mr White’s associates force the barrier arm partially up and rush towards the Bandidos members, carrying a short metal-like silver weapon and a wrench respectively. They were followed by Mr White, carrying a short curved re-bar pole, and another masked associate, carrying a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire.

[5] As they approached the Bandidos members, one of the Bandidos, who was sitting on his motorcycle, flees…

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 White v The King

Details

AGLC: White v The King [2025] NZHC 1296
Case: [2025] NZHC 1296
Decision Date: 26 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jesse White appeals his sentence for various drug dealing offences and for involvement in a violent confrontation between rival gangs at a holiday park. The appeal focuses on whether the starting point for the violence offences was too high, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. The violent incident involved multiple Mongols gang members, including Mr White, confronting Bandidos Motorcycle Club members, leading to property damage and potential harm. The sentencing judge set a starting point of two and a half years for the violence offences, considering the premeditated nature of the attack, the presence of multiple offenders, the gang context, and the public place where it occurred.

The appeal court found that the sentencing judge was correct in adopting a global starting point for the violence charges and treating all offenders as equally culpable. The court compared the present case to previous decisions, noting that the current offences were more serious due to the use of dangerous weapons and the orchestrated nature of the attack. The court rejected Mr White’s argument that a lower starting point would have been appropriate, emphasizing the serious nature of the violence and the potential harm to the public. The court also highlighted the substantial reduction for totality and the incorrect application of the uplift for offending while on bail, which likely resulted in a lower end sentence than otherwise. Given these factors, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders