Legal Research
Cases
Bancroft v The Queen

Bancroft v The Queen

Case [2015] NZCA 140 30 April 2015

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA737/2014
[2015] NZCA 140

BETWEEN	WILLIAM PHILLIP BANCROFT Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	29 April 2015
Court:	French, Simon France and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	M Dyhrberg QC for Appellant G A Kelly for Respondent
Judgment:	30 April 2015 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against sentence is allowed.
BPursuant to s 385(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1961, the case is remitted to the High Court with a direction that:
(a)The High Court quash the sentence of three years six months’ imprisonment.
(b)The High court re-sentence the appellant on the basis of a factual finding that the amount of methamphetamine supplied was 0.5 grams.

CThe case is to be brought before the High Court at the earliest possible opportunity.

____________________________________________________________________

[Reasons to follow]

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office , Wellington for Respondent

Details

AGLC: Bancroft v The Queen [2015] NZCA 140
Case: [2015] NZCA 140
Decision Date: 30 April 2015 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

William Phillip Bancroft has appealed against his sentence, which was handed down by the High Court. Bancroft was found guilty of supplying methamphetamine, and was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. Bancroft argues that the sentence was excessive, and that the High Court did not take into account the small amount of methamphetamine supplied. The Crown argues that the sentence was appropriate, and that the amount of methamphetamine supplied was not a mitigating factor.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed by the High Court was excessive, and whether the High Court erred in not taking into account the small amount of methamphetamine supplied. The Court of Appeal considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the High Court had failed to take into account a relevant mitigating factor.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed by the High Court was manifestly excessive, and that the High Court had erred in not taking into account the small amount of methamphetamine supplied. The Court of Appeal noted that the amount of methamphetamine supplied was a relevant mitigating factor, and that the High Court should have taken it into account when sentencing Bancroft. The Court of Appeal also noted that the sentence imposed by the High Court was disproportionate to the offence committed.

The appeal against sentence is allowed. The case is remitted to the High Court with a direction that the High Court quash the sentence of three years six months’ imprisonment and re-sentence the appellant on the basis of a factual finding that the amount of methamphetamine supplied was 0.5 grams. The case is to be brought before the High Court at the earliest possible opportunity.

Orders