Wilde v The King - [2025] NZHC 2370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

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

CRI-2025-488-000039

[2025] NZHC 2370

BETWEEN
NICHOLAS WILDE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 14 August 2025

Counsel:

D J Blaikie for appellant

A J Goodwin for respondent

Judgment:

20 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF JOHNSTONE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 August 2025 at 3pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
MWIS, Whangārei D J Blaikie, Kaikohe

WILDE v R [2025] NZHC 2370 [20 August 2025]

[1] Nicholas Wilde pleaded guilty to charges involving the distribution of methamphetamine and the cultivation of cannabis. He was sentenced in the District Court at Whangārei to an overall term of two years and four months’ imprisonment.1

[2]Mr Wilde now appeals against that sentence.

[3] Assessing the substantive merit of an appeal requires consideration whether, for any reason, there was a sentencing error such that a different sentence should be imposed.2 It must be shown that the sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, or that there are exceptional circumstances requiring the correction of an in-range sentence.3

[4] Mr Wilde says, in essence, that three errors made his sentence manifestly excessive:

(a)The sentencing Judge’s starting point for the charges involving methamphetamine distribution, the uplift for the cannabis cultivation, and thus the adjusted starting point for all of the offending, were too high.

(b)The reductions for Mr Wilde’s drug addiction, and for his response to his offending (including his remorse, and rehabilitative efforts and prospects), were too low.

(c)Mr Wilde should have received greater credit for his extended period on bail with an EM condition.

1      R v Wilde [2025] NZDC 4107.
2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.
3      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [30]–[36], Te Aho v R [2013] NZCA
47 at [30].

Were the starting points too high?

The starting point for the methamphetamine-related charges

[5] Mr Wilde’s methamphetamine-related offending came to light during a police investigation which turned its focus upon his partner, Carlyn Anderson. The police commenced intercepting Ms Anderson’s phone calls and messages, and captured evidence of her purchasing methamphetamine, and arranging for its distribution, in ounce lots.

[6]More particularly:

(a)On 21 July 2021, Ms Anderson arranged for Mr Wilde to deliver a half-ounce of methamphetamine for $4,000.4

(b)On 14 August 2021, Ms Anderson offered to supply two ounces of methamphetamine, and advised that Mr Wilde was on his way to deliver it.5

(c)On 22 September 2021, Ms Anderson agreed to have Mr Wilde deliver methamphetamine, observing that he would not be too far away. During the rest of that day and the next, Mr Wilde delivered around
1.5 ounces. 6

(d)On 15 October 2021, the police executed a search warrant at the couple’s home in Opononi, finding a bag, inside which were 16 half-gram bags of methamphetamine in one container and six half-gram bags in another. When stopped in a vehicle elsewhere in Northland, Mr…

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 Wilde v The King

Details

AGLC: Wilde v The King [2025] NZHC 2370
Case: [2025] NZHC 2370
Decision Date: 20 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nicholas Wilde appeals against his sentence of two years and four months' imprisonment for drug-related offences, including the distribution of methamphetamine and the cultivation of cannabis. The sentencing Judge set a starting point of three and a half years for the methamphetamine charges, and a six-month uplift for the cannabis cultivation. The Judge allowed a 20 per cent reduction for Wilde's drug addiction and response to his offending, and a six-month reduction for his time on electronically monitored bail. Wilde argues that these factors warranted a lower sentence. The High Court found that the starting points for the methamphetamine charges and cannabis cultivation were appropriate, but that Wilde deserved a higher reduction for his addiction and response to prosecution, and a greater credit for his time on electronically monitored bail. Accordingly, the Court substituted a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for the methamphetamine-related charges and a concurrent three months' imprisonment for the cannabis offence, with leave to apply for home detention if a suitable residence is found.

Orders