AMr Baird’s appeal against conviction is dismissed.
BMr Tang’s appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of 13 years imprisonment is quashed. A sentence of 11 and a half years imprisonment is substituted.
CAll other appeals against sentence are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

Table of contents

Para No
Introduction	[1]
Appeal against conviction by Steven John Baird	[7]
Grounds of appeal	[7]
Should the Crown have advanced its case against Mr Baird on counts 5 and 7 under both s 66(1) and (2)?	[9]
The trial Judge’s summing up	[15]
Unreasonableness and the proviso to s 385	[33]
Appeal against sentence by Zhong Jie Tang	[40]
The starting point and disparity with Mr Sims	[42]
Was the uplift too great?	[57]
Result	[60]
Appeal against sentence by Steven John Baird	[61]
Should the Judge have placed greater weight on Mr Baird’s personal circumstances?	[65]
Did the end sentence fairly reflect the totality of the offending?	[74]
Minimum period of imprisonment	[77]
Appeal against sentence by Jialin Wu	[84]
Was the starting point too high?	[85]
Was the uplift excessive?	[91]
Was the end sentence excessive?	[92]
Appeal against sentence by Robert Jones	[95]
Was the starting point too high compared to that taken for other offenders?	[97]
Weight given to mitigating factors	[100]
Result	[103]

Introduction

The appellants and two others were convicted on charges of manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine and other related offences following a jury trial in the High Court at Auckland before Woodhouse J.[1] One of the appellants, Steven John Baird, appeals his conviction. All, including Mr Baird, appeal their sentences.[2]
[1] The two others convicted have not appealed.
[2] R v Tang HC Auckland CRI-2009-004-13439, 6 October 2011.
The charges followed a police operation that included the surveillance of the Jacaranda Motel in Epsom. The Crown alleged that the accused were party to a common enterprise to manufacture and supply methamphetamine. The roles taken by the various accused were established mainly through intercepted text messages and phone calls. Other evidence was found following searches of the motel and other premises at the termination of the operation.
Zhong Jie Tang, the lessee of the motel, was the organiser of the enterprise. Terence Arthur Sims (not an appellant) was the cook. Steven Baird was primarily involved in the supply of the methamphetamine but…

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 Baird v R

Details

AGLC: Baird v R [2012] NZCA 430
Case: [2012] NZCA 430
Decision Date: 21 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard appeals against convictions and sentences of four individuals involved in the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine. Steven John Baird appealed his conviction on two counts of manufacturing methamphetamine, arguing that the Crown's case against him was mishandled and the trial judge's summing up was inadequate. Zhong Jie Tang, Jialin Wu, and Robert Jones appealed their sentences, arguing that the starting points and uplifts were excessive or that there was a disparity with other offenders' sentences. The Court found that Baird's appeal against conviction was dismissed, while Tang's appeal against sentence was allowed, resulting in a substitution of his sentence from 13 years to 11 and a half years imprisonment. All other appeals against sentence were dismissed.

Orders