Corless v The Queen - [2020] NZHC 3208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-404-426

[2020] NZHC 3208

BETWEEN
SCOTT JAMES CORLESS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 7 December 2020

Appearances:

B Sellars QC and H J Bell for the appellant R W Belcher for the respondent

Judgment:

7 December 2020

ORAL JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

Counsel/Solicitors:
B Sellars QC, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

CORLESS v R [2020] NZHC 3208 [7 December 2020]

[1] Scott James Corless appeals his sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment, imposed by Judge E P Paul in the District Court at Auckland on 5 October 2020,1 on Mr Corless’ guilty pleas to two charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply.2

Background

[2] On 17 September 2019, police – exercising a warrant to return Mr Corless to custody, after he failed drug tests while on parole from a 11-year sentence for “manufacture of [methamphetamine] on a large scale”3 – located him with three others at his third-floor apartment in Auckland’s Glen Eden.

[3] According to the summary of facts, while they sought entry, items were seen thrown from the apartment’s balcony to that of a neighbour. After entering and arresting Mr Corless, police found 185.3g of methamphetamine in plastic containers, and drug-dealing paraphernalia (glass pipes and plastic ziplock bags) on the neighbouring balcony. Two new sets of digital scales and another 12.1g of methamphetamine in a plastic container were found concealed next to another of the apartment’s occupants, Kara Rudolph, standing on the balcony. A box for one of the scales was located next to Mr Corless. Substantial quantities of crystalline and diluted forms of phosphorus acid, a precursor substance used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, were found in a car registered to Mr Rudolph parked in the apartment complex’s carpark. Mr Corless had 336 milligrams of MDMA and
$1,131.20 in cash, and Mr Rudolph $3,510 in cash and other drug-dealing paraphernalia (plastic ziplock bags and cut straws), on their persons.

Decision under appeal

[4] Sentencing proceeded on a purity-adjusted quantity of 105.39g of methamphetamine in Mr Corless’ possession for supply. The Judge held that quantity “significant”, but Mr Corless’ role in his possession of it “less clear on all the evidence”.4 Even allowing for purchase to feed Mr Corless’ addiction, the presence of

1      R v Corless [2020] NZDC 20489.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a). Maximum period of imprisonment: life.
3      R v Corless [2014] NZHC 1211 at [23].
4      R v Corless, above n 1, at [7].

drug-dealing paraphernalia only allowed for an assessment of “less [than significant] involvement”, attracting a starting point of four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.5

[5] The Judge uplifted that starting point to five years for offending while on parole for drug offending, and discounted it by 25 per cent for his guilty pleas, and a further 15 per cent for his addiction (while rejecting a higher figure, given Mr Corless’ “age and the opportunities [he] had to address…

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 Corless v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Corless v The Queen [2020] NZHC 3208
Case: [2020] NZHC 3208
Decision Date: 7 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scott James Corless appeals against his two-year and three-month sentence for possession of methamphetamine for supply. The appeal arose from a guilty plea entered in the District Court on 5 October 2020. Corless was arrested on 17 September 2019 when police found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia at his apartment. The key issue was whether the starting point of four-and-a-half years for the offence was appropriate, given Corless' role in the possession of the drugs and the level of discount for his addiction and other personal factors. The Court held that the starting point was correctly determined, and the discounts were appropriately applied, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

The Court found no error in the starting point of four-and-a-half years for the offence, as the quantity of methamphetamine involved warranted such a starting point. Corless' role in the possession of the drugs was considered, but the circumstantial evidence supported a conclusion that Corless had a significant involvement in the supply of the drugs. The Court also found that the Judge appropriately balanced Corless' addiction against his presumed commercial dealing when determining the discount for addiction. The Judge's additional discount for time spent on recall was also found to be appropriate, considering the circumstances of Corless' recall and the need to balance deterrence with the avoidance of double punishment.

Orders