Chase v The King - [2023] NZHC 3494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2023-463-06

[2023] NZHC 3494

BETWEEN
LESAH CHASE

Appellant

AND

THE CROWN

Respondent

Hearing: 10 November 2023

Appearances:

R Mansfield KC for the Appellant M Tutton-Harris for the Crown

Judgment:

4 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF HARVEY J

This judgment is delivered by me on 4 December 2023 at 11 am.

.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Counsel:
R Mansfield KC, Auckland

Solicitors:
Pollett Legal Ltd, Tauranga

CHASE v THE CROWN [2023] NZHC 3494 [4 December 2023]

Introduction

[1] Lesah Chase was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for supply following a Judge-alone trial in the District Court at Whakatāne before Judge I D R Cameron on 18 March 2022.1 She appeals her conviction, claiming that the learned Judge erred when assessing the evidence such that a miscarriage of justice occurred.

Facts

[2] On 7 June 2021, Police executed a search warrant at the address of Ms Chase and her partner Pomare Pirini. The warrant was executed against Mr Pirini, who was a person of interest in “Operation Van”. He is said to be a patched member of the Comancheros. At the time, no one was home. A cordon was set up at the end of the street. Police observed Mr Pirini’s Toyota Hilux drive past and pursued it. Ms Chase was the driver. She was stopped and questioned about the whereabouts of Mr Pirini. Meanwhile, Mr Pirini was stopped on the opposite side of the road. With him was their two year old child. Ms Chase retrieved the child from Mr Pirini. She requested a nappy bag from the vehicle she had been driving.

[3] Police took the nappy bag from the rear passenger footwell. It contained two nappies and a folded changing mat. Underneath the changing mat were zip lock bags containing methamphetamine. Ms Chase then changed her son’s diaper on the side of the road. The methamphetamine weighed a total of 167.1 grams in 28 gram (“ounce”) increments. Ms Chase denied knowledge of the methamphetamine.

[4]Text messages between Mr Pirini and Ms Chase were intercepted as follows:

Pirini: Babe carry on Past
Babe
???

Chase: They following
I’m going opo Pirini: They follow? Chase: Yup

Pirini: You got internet? Chase: Yup
Pirini: Go on IG

1 R v Chase [2022] NZDC 5052.

Are they right behind you? Yes
Babe
I’ll pull up at new world Babe
I’ll pull up at new world IG

[5] At trial Ms Chase’s evidence was that the three of them had been on a weekend trip to Mr Pirini’s house. The nappy bag was already in the vehicle before they left. It was infrequently used and topped up by both Ms Chase and Mr Pirini. Ms Chase packed a separate overnight bag with nappies and wipes that was used throughout the weekend. The family returned on Sunday. On Monday 7 June 2021, all three drove into town to shop. Mr Pirini packed the shopping into the car.

[6]…

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 Chase v The King

Details

AGLC: Chase v The King [2023] NZHC 3494
Case: [2023] NZHC 3494
Decision Date: 4 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lesah Chase appeals her conviction of possession of methamphetamine for supply, following a Judge-alone trial in the District Court at Whakatāne. The primary issues in the appeal were whether the District Court erred in its assessment of the evidence, and whether the presumption of supply was correctly applied. Ms Chase argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove she had knowledge of the methamphetamine in her possession and that the presumption of supply was incorrectly applied. The Crown argued that the District Court's findings were supported by the evidence and that the presumption of supply was correctly applied.

The High Court found that the District Court did not err in its assessment of the evidence. The Judge made several factual findings that established Ms Chase's knowledge of the methamphetamine, including that she requested the nappy bag to prevent the discovery of the drugs, she did not stop at the property because she knew there were drugs in the car, and she did not question Mr Pirini because she knew what the Police were looking for. These findings were available to the Judge and not untenable on the evidence. The High Court also found that the presumption of supply was correctly applied as Ms Chase was a joint possessor of the drugs. The sentencing notes indicating Ms Chase played a lesser role did not affect the presumption of supply established at trial.

Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders