Legal Research
Cases
Doyle v R

Doyle v R

Case [2022] NZCA 307 12 July 2022

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA465/2021
[2022] NZCA 307

BETWEEN	LEE ALEXANDER DOYLE Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	2 May 2022
Court:	French, Venning and Moore JJ
Counsel:	M R Bott and R D Mulgan for Appellant D R Davies and E R Pairman for Respondent
Judgment:	12 July 2022 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.
___________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Moore J)

Background

Lee Doyle joined the New Zealand Defence Force (“NZDF”) when he was 17 years old. He served in the army for some seven years with the rank of private. Towards the end of that period Mr Doyle discovered that his long-term partner was having an affair with his platoon commander. Her infidelity was common knowledge among others in his camp. Unsurprisingly this caused him significant distress.
To cope, Mr Doyle began drinking heavily on the weekends. He also used MDMA. To fund his drug use, he began dealing the drug to friends, including other members of the military.
Mr Doyle pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of MDMA for the purpose of supply.[1] He applied for a discharge without conviction.[2] The Crown did not oppose his application.[3] On 16 June 2021, Judge Northwood refused to discharge Mr Doyle.[4] He was convicted and sentenced to five months’ community detention and nine months’ supervision.[5]
[1]Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(b). Maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
[2]Sentencing Act 2002, ss 106–107.
[3]In a memorandum dated 30 April 2021 the Crown Prosecutor considered that “without formally consenting to the application, the Crown considers Mr Doyle’s application is properly made out on the merits”.
[4]R v Doyle [2021] NZDC 9995.
[5]R v Doyle [2021] NZDC 22864.
Mr Doyle now appeals the Judge’s refusal.

The offending

On 19 June 2020, the police executed a search warrant at Mr Doyle’s home address in Palmerston North. A drug detection dog indicated the presence of controlled drugs in two bedrooms.
The police first searched Mr Doyle’s bedroom. There they located $2,070 in cash (predominantly in $50 denominations), a tick list and a set of electronic scales.
The police then searched the second bedroom. They found two zip-lock plastic bags containing a total of 28.94 grams of MDMA; another seven zip-lock bags together containing 10.53 grams of MDMA; a number of empty zip-lock bags; a white dinner plate with a rolled up $50 note and another set of electronic scales on it; and a small white dish containing MDMA residue.
It was common ground the drugs and paraphernalia found at the address belonged to Mr Doyle.

Legal principles — discharge without conviction

If a person pleads guilty to an offence, the court may, instead of imposing a sentence, direct that the offender be discharged.[6] The court must not discharge an offender without conviction unless the court is satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all…

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 Doyle v R

Details

AGLC: Doyle v R [2022] NZCA 307
Case: [2022] NZCA 307
Decision Date: 12 July 2022 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Doyle appeals against the District Court’s refusal to grant him a discharge without conviction. The Crown does not oppose the appeal. The Court of Appeal must decide whether the Judge made a material error in finding that the direct and indirect consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. The appeal is dismissed. The Court found that the quantity of MDMA involved, the indicia of commerciality, and the finality of Doyle’s discharge from the NZDF operate against a discharge without conviction. The gravity of Doyle’s offending was properly characterised as moderate, and the consequences of a conviction relatively minor. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders