Adams v The King - [2024] NZHC 2367

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-409-161 CRI-2024-409-162

CRI-2024-409-163 [2024] NZHC 2367

BETWEEN
TONY DEAN ADAMS

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 22 August 2024

Appearances:

J D N MacLeod for Appellant

B W D Alexander for Respondent

Judgment:

22 August 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT OF EATON J

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

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

ADAMS v R [2024] NZHC 2367 [22 August 2024]

Introduction

[1] Following guilty pleas, Tony Dean Adams was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment by Judge Kellar on 11 June 2024.1 His offending involved two separate sets of offences. The charges within the first set are:

(a)burglary;2

(b)possession of cannabis;3

(c)possession of methamphetamine;4

(d)possession of methamphetamine utensils;5

(e)failing to comply with search obligations.6

[2]The second set of charges are:

(a)supplying methamphetamine (representative);7

(b)selling cannabis (representative);8

(c)possession of methamphetamine for supply;9

(d)possession of cannabis for supply;10

(e)unlawful possession of firearms (representative);11

1      R v Adams [2024] NZDC 13484.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a) — maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2) — maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment,
$500 fine.
4      Section 7(1)(a) and (2) — maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, $1,000 fine.
5      Section 13(1)(a) and (3) — maximum penalty of one year imprisonment, $500 fine.
6      Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 178 — maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
7      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(c) and (2) — maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
8      Section 6(1)(e) and (2) — maximum penalty of eight years imprisonment.
9      Section 6(1)(f) and (2) — maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
10     Section 6(1)(f) and (2) — maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment.
11     Arms Act 1983, s 45(1) — maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment, $5,000.00 fine.

(f)unlawful possession of a restricted weapon;12 and

(g)unlawful possession of ammunition.13

[3] Mr Adams says on appeal that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. He advances two specific grounds, first, that the uplift of 15 per cent for previous criminal convictions was too high and secondly, that the Judge should have allowed a credit for his rehabilitative prospects.

Facts

[4] In relation to the first set of charges, sometime between 6.30 am and 7.00 am on 15 April 2023, the appellant and an associate were at the Sign of the Kiwi Café on Summit Road. The appellant was in the driver’s seat of his vehicle waiting outside the café whilst the associate broke down the front door in an attempt to gain entry. The associate also entered a garage at the address, taking various items before getting back into the passenger seat of the car. Mr Adams then drove away with speed. Police located him a short time later and completed a vehicle stop. Police located a lock picking set, a window punch tool and a large number of motor vehicle keys. They also…

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 Adams v The King

Details

AGLC: Adams v The King [2024] NZHC 2367
Case: [2024] NZHC 2367
Decision Date: 22 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, dealt with the case of Tony Dean Adams, who appealed against his five-year imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge Kellar. Adams, having pleaded guilty, faced multiple charges including burglary, possession of drugs, possession of drugs for supply, and possession of firearms. The appeal centred on two grounds: the 15 per cent uplift for previous criminal convictions and the refusal to credit rehabilitative prospects. Adams argued that the uplift was excessively high and disproportionate, particularly considering he had no history of drug dealing or firearms-related offences. He also claimed he should have received credit for his rehabilitative prospects, despite offending while on electronically monitored bail. The court examined the rationale for the uplift, noting that while Adams' criminal history justified some consideration, the 15 per cent uplift was excessive. The court found that the 15 per cent uplift, which equated to an 11-month uplift, was disproportionate and did not reflect a considered response to Adams' criminal history. Regarding the rehabilitative prospects, the court concluded that the Judge was justified in declining to credit them, given that Adams had offended while serving a rehabilitative sentence. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced from five years to four years and two months. Additionally, the sentences for the cannabis supply charges were corrected from five years and two years to two months each.

Orders