Beckham v Police - [2018] NZHC 324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2018-425-000002

[2018] NZHC 324

BETWEEN
DYLAN LEVI BECKHAM

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondents

Hearing: 5 March 2018

Appearances:

P B Redpath for Appellant

R W Donnelley for Respondents

Judgment:

6 March 2018

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] On 5 December 2017 in the District Court at Invercargill, the appellant, Mr Beckham was sentenced by Judge Roberts to three years’ imprisonment on a number of charges. These were of possession of methamphetamine and cannabis for supply, offering to sell cannabis, breach of release conditions, failing to answer bail, intentional damage, possession of a pistol, and possession of a knife in a public place.1 He appeals that sentence, saying it departed from a sentencing indication previously given on 3 July 2017 by Judge Brandts-Giesen. He contends also that it failed to take into account time served on electronically monitored bail (EM bail).

1 Police v Beckham [2017] NZDC 27946.

BECKHAM v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 324 [6 March 2018]

The offending

[2] Mr Beckham was released from prison on 14 September 2016 on a special condition that he attend a departmental ‘motivational’ programme. The earliest charge currently at issue arose when he failed to comply with that condition. He appeared in the Invercargill District Court on that charge in February 2017 and was bailed to reappear later that month. He failed to appear and was also charged with failing to answer bail.

[3] In March 2017 a house at which Mr Beckham was present, with his partner and their daughter, was searched pursuant to a warrant. Found there was 2.29 grams of methamphetamine (street value $2,290), packaged in small quantities in snap lock bags and 4.98 grams of cannabis similarly packaged. Cash, scales, and other drug related paraphernalia were also located at the property.

[4] The next charge chronologically was one of intentional damage. In June 2017 Mr Beckham was at his mother’s address, became upset, and threw his dinner plate at the wall causing damage to the gib board.

[5] In relation to the above charges Mr Beckham had been remanded on EM bail at his mother’s address. In September 2017, that address was searched pursuant to a warrant. A Ruger .22 calibre pistol with a silencer was located between Mr Beckham’s bed base and the mattress. The safety catch was off, and the pistol was loaded with a 10-shot magazine. It also had a round in the chamber. It was set up in such a way that the handle grip was readily available, and just visible looking at the mattress. A number of methamphetamine point bags were also located in the bed, two of which had methamphetamine in them. A “drug dealer’s kit”, with point bags, straws, scoopers, and electronic scales was also located.

[6] After the search, the appellant was located, and taken to the Police station. On the way there, he admitted he had a…

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 Beckham v Police

Details

AGLC: Beckham v Police [2018] NZHC 324
Case: [2018] NZHC 324
Decision Date: 6 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the appellant, Dylan Levi Beckham, appeals against the sentence imposed on him by Judge Roberts in the District Court at Invercargill, which was three years' imprisonment for various charges. Beckham contends that the sentence departed from a previous sentencing indication and failed to take into account the time he served on electronically monitored bail. The court was required to decide whether there was an error in the sentence imposed by Judge Roberts, and if so, whether an alternative sentence should be imposed.

The court considered the grounds of appeal, which were that the Judge erred by not applying the four-month discount for personal factors and not applying a discount for the time Beckham spent on electronically monitored bail. The court held that the sentence indication was not binding on Judge Roberts, and that the failure to allow an opportunity to vacate pleas did not necessarily mean the sentencing Judge was bound by the indication. The court found that the sentence imposed did not materially differ from the term of imprisonment in the sentencing indication. The court also held that it was not bound to give a discount for time spent on electronically monitored bail, and that not doing so did not make the sentence manifestly excessive. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders