Pretrial ruling — manufacturing methamphetamine — unlawfully carrying or possessing firearms/explosive — possessing methamphetamine for supply — admissibility of evidence — propensity evidence — Evidence Act 2006, ss 40(1)(a) & 43 — Arms Act 1983, s 66 — R v Creelman 30 March 2007, High Court Auckland CRI 2005-090-003426 — R v Alamoti, Wiles and Gilfedder [2016] NZDC 20702 — Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507 — Preston v R [2012] NZCA 542 — Broome v R [2017] NZCA 575 — Latifi v R [2014] NZCA 11 — Patten v R [2014] NZCA 486 — Grimshaw v R [2013] NZCA 22 — R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 — Khan v R [2010] NZCA 510 — Brown v R [2020] NZCA 97 — March 2021 Parliamentary service Paper “Methamphetamine in New Zealand: A snapshot of recent trends”. Two defendants faced charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, unlawfully carrying or possessing firearms, possessing methamphetamine for supply, and possessing precursor substances. The police arrived at a rental property to arrest the first defendant, who had a warrant against him. The defendants' behaviour at the property aroused the suspicions of the police, who subsequently found a large amount of cash, methamphetamine, precursor substances and manufacturing equipment, counterfeit driver licenses, guns and ammunition in the property and a car outside. The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the defendants' previous convictions as propensity evidence. The first defendant had multiple convictions relating to methamphetamine, firearms and dishonesty, dating back to 2007. The Court found that his offending had been frequent and connected in time, given his long periods of incarceration since 2007. Although the defendant had no convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine, the differences could be explained by general drug offending trends. Also, the defendant's use of firearms in his drug offending was a consistent theme and the Court considered that this was unusual. The second defendant had 10 methamphetamine convictions and one for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. The Court found that the prior offending was closely connected in time to the current allegations, given the time that the defendant had spent in custody. Despite some differences between the current allegations and the defendant's prior convictions, the second defendant seemed to have a propensity to sell drugs commercially. Finally, the Court considered that to introduce the evidence would not be unfairly prejudicial to the defendants. The fact that the defendants had had prior involvement with methamphetamine suggested that they knew how to use the substances and equipment located on the property. The Court found that the evidence of prior convictions was admissible, except for in connection to the manufacturing methamphetamine charges given that the prior convictions showed no propensity of the defendants to manufacture methamphetamine. Judgment Date: 20 July 2022