Beazley v Police - [2016] NZHC 129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-404-315 [2016] NZHC 129

BETWEEN
MATHEW BEAZLEY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 4 February 2016

Counsel:

C B Wilkinson-Smith for Appellant
M J Hammer for Respondent

Judgment:

11 February 2016

JUDGMENT OF DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 February 2016 at 3:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: Christopher Wilkinson-Smith (Auckland) for Appellant
Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

BEAZLEY v POLICE [2016] NZHC 129 [11 February 2016]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Mr Beazley, was found guilty following a Judge-alone trial at the Kaikohe District Court on one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply1 (the “vehicle offence”) and, in relation to the second set of offending, one charge of possession of utensils (a glass pipe)2 and one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply (the “Ormonde Place offences”). He was sentenced to
three years and two months’ imprisonment.

[2] Mr Beazley now appeals against his convictions.

Background

The vehicle offence

[3] On 28 July 2014, Mr Beazley and a Mr Reeves were travelling together in Mr Reeves’ car on a road in Kaikohe. Mr Reeves was driving and Mr Beazley was seated on the backseat. A small child was seated in a child’s seat situated on the front passenger seat. The vehicle was stopped by the Police as part of a routine traffic check. As a Constable approached the vehicle, Mr Beazley was observed to be trying to conceal something in the rear seat area and Mr Reeves appeared rather nervous.

[4] The Police proceeded to conduct a search of Mr Beazley and a backpack he had with him. Mr Beazley was found to be in possession of $2,800 in cash and a number of point bags. Under Mr Beazley’s backpack, in the backseat area, the Police found a glass pipe and a small set of pocket scales. Also found was a small plastic container containing 12 grams of methamphetamine which had been placed under the passenger seat near the foot-well where Mr Beazley had been seated when the car was stopped.

[5] Mr Beazley claimed that the methamphetamine found in the vehicle did not

belong to him but to Mr Reeves. Mr Beazley’s explanation and defence advanced at

his trial was that he was a customer of Mr Reeves, and that he had arranged to meet

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2).
2 Section 13(1)(a) and (3).

Mr Reeves to purchase some methamphetamine from him by means of an exchange of text messages between them earlier that day. He said he was in the car with Mr Reeves to go to the Ormonde Place address to collect some needles he needed for his own use.

Ormonde Place offences

[6] In the course of speaking with the Police, Mr Beazley advised them of the address on Ormonde Place which was where he said he stayed from time to time. This was the address of his partner,…

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 Beazley v Police

Details

AGLC: Beazley v Police [2016] NZHC 129
Case: [2016] NZHC 129
Decision Date: 11 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mathew Beazley appeals against his convictions and sentences following his trial in the Kaikohe District Court. He was convicted of one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply (in relation to a vehicle) and two charges of possession of methamphetamine and utensils for supply (in relation to an address on Ormonde Place). Beazley argues that the District Court Judge erred in finding that he was in possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply, that the Judge failed to give reasons for the guilty verdicts on the Ormonde Place charges, and that the Judge erred in admitting improperly obtained evidence. Beazley further contends that the Police and the Crown failed to make full and complete pre-trial disclosure, as required by the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008, and that the omission of the phone records from the disclosure resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the District Court erred in rejecting Beazley's evidence without regard to the existence of text messages which would have corroborated his version of events, and that the failure to disclose the phone records resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court quashed the conviction entered on the one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply (in relation to the vehicle offending) and directed a new trial on that charge. The convictions entered on the charges relating to the Ormonde Place offending were quashed and acquittal was entered in respect of each of those charges.

Orders