Curtis v The the King - [2022] NZHC 2816

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI 2022-087-736

[2022] NZHC 2816

BETWEEN
AREN THOMAS CURTIS

Appellant

AND

THE CROWN

Respondent

On the papers

Counsel:

B Nabney for the appellant D Coulson for the Crown

Judgment:

31 October 2022

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

[Appeal against Sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 October 2022 at 12.00 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

CURTIS v THE CROWN [2022] NZHC 2816 [31 October 2022]

Introduction

[1]The appellant, Mr Curtis, was convicted of the following:

(a)Unlawful possession of a firearm;1

(b)Two charges of driving while disqualified;2

(c)Two charges of possession of methamphetamine;3 and

(d)Two charges of possession of a methamphetamine pipe.4

[2] Mr Curtis was sentenced to two years and one month’s imprisonment by Judge T R Ingram in the Tauranga District Court on 28 January 2022.5 He appeals against his sentence. His sole ground of appeal is that the starting point for the firearm charge should have been 18 months’ imprisonment, rather than the two years’ imprisonment adopted by Judge Ingram.

[3] Mr Curtis brought his appeal five months out of time. He applies for an extension of time to appeal.

[4]The parties were content for the matter to be determined on the papers.

Offending

[5]I need only summarise the firearm offending.

[6] On 10 September 2020, Mr Curtis parked a car on a road near Tauranga. He fell asleep in the driver’s seat. Next to him, in the front passenger’s foot well, was a sawn-off shotgun in a bag. The shotgun was positioned so that it was easily

1      Arms Act 1983, s 51. Maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment, or $4,000 fine, or both.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(3). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment, or $4,000 fine. The court must order licence disqualification for a minimum of six months.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, or $6,000 fine, or both.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and (3).   Maximum penalty of one year imprisonment,   or $500 fine, or both.
5      R v Curtis [2022] NZDC 1471.

accessible from the driver’s seat. The shotgun was loaded with two 12-gauge rounds. The safety mechanism was set to fire.

[7] Members of the public believed that the way the car was parked was a safety risk. They contacted Police.

[8] Three constables located the car and approached it. This woke Mr Curtis. There was an altercation. During the altercation Mr Curtis reached down towards the passenger foot well. Mr Curtis was restrained.

[9]The constables searched the car and found the sawn-off shotgun.

[10]Mr Curtis did not hold a firearms licence.

Sentencing decision

[11] Judge Ingram treated the firearm charge as the lead offence. He referred to a then recent decision, Apiata v Police,6 in which Lang J had reviewed relevant authorities. Lang J had accepted that for unlawful possession of a firearm in a house,…

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 Curtis v The the King

Details

AGLC: Curtis v The the King [2022] NZHC 2816
Case: [2022] NZHC 2816
Decision Date: 31 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered an appeal by Aren Thomas Curtis against his sentence. Curtis was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm, driving while disqualified, and possession of methamphetamine and a methamphetamine pipe. Curtis appealed his two-year-and-one-month imprisonment sentence, arguing that the starting point for the firearm charge should have been 18 months, not two years. Curtis brought his appeal five months out of time and sought an extension of time to appeal. The parties agreed to have the matter determined on the papers.

The court considered the appropriate starting point for the firearm charge, with Curtis arguing that 18 months was appropriate given the circumstances. The Crown argued that the starting point was within the range available to the sentencing judge. The court found that Judge Ingram did not err in adopting a starting point of two years for the lead firearm charge. This conclusion was sufficient to dispose of the substantive appeal.

The appeal was dismissed. The court did not find the sentence manifestly excessive, noting that the discount for a guilty plea was almost 30% of the starting point. The court granted an extension of time to appeal, finding no prejudice to the Crown.

Orders