Hearing:	10 October 2017
Court:	Kós P, Woolford and Collins JJ
Counsel:	M E Goodwin and A C Cresswell for T G Edwardson A J Maxwell-Scott for T H M Maaka L O Smith for J G Vijn R M Mansfield and S R Lack for T J Sadler N P Chisnall for P F Atkinson J-A Kincade for F B Maaka R M A McCoubrey and F M T Culliney for Respondent
Judgment:	20 December 2017 at 4.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeals against conviction are dismissed.
BMr Atkinson’s application for leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal is granted.
CMr T Maaka’s appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence imposed in the High Court is quashed and replaced with a sentence of 14 years and eight months’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years and seven months.
DMr Vijn’s appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence imposed in the High Court is quashed and replaced with a sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment.
EMr Sadler’s appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence imposed in the High Court is quashed and replaced with a sentence of 16 years and eight months’ imprisonment with a minimum period of eight years and four months.
FMr Atkinson’s and Mr F Maaka’s appeals against sentence are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Woolford and Collins JJ)

Introduction

All appellants appeal their convictions for multiple charges relating, in the main, to the manufacture and possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply. Five of the appellants appeal their sentences.[1]
[1]R v Hines [2017] NZHC 769 [Sentencing notes].
The charges arose from a police operation that led to nine defendants, including the six appellants, facing trial by jury in the High Court at Auckland before Downs J. The police investigation focused upon the suspected manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine by members of a chapter of the Head Hunters Motorcycle Club (Head Hunters) in the Auckland area. The alleged leader of the group was Mr Hines, whose appeals against conviction and sentence are to be heard by this Court on another occasion.[2] Mr Hines, Mr Te Here Maaka (Mr T Maaka), Mr Falco Maaka (Mr F Maaka) and Mr Sadler were patched members of the Head Hunters. Mr Edwardson (the father of Mr Sadler) was a prospect for the Head Hunters. Mr Vijn and Mr Atkinson became involved through their association with various members of the Head Hunters.
[2]Mr Hines’ appeals could not be heard with the current appeals because of…

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 Edwardson v R

Details

AGLC: Edwardson v The Queen [2017] NZCA 618
Case: [2017] NZCA 618
Decision Date: 20 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The six appellants were convicted of multiple charges relating to the manufacture and possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of supply. The police investigation focused upon the suspected manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine by members of a chapter of the Head Hunters Motorcycle Club in the Auckland area. The charges arose from a police operation that led to nine defendants, including the six appellants, facing trial by jury in the High Court at Auckland before Downs J. The appellants appealed against their convictions and/or their sentences. The primary issues before the Court of Appeal were whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellants, whether the sentences imposed were appropriate and whether the appellants’ ill health or advanced age warranted a reduction in sentence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals against conviction and allowed the appeals against sentence in respect of three of the appellants. The Court of Appeal granted leave to adduce fresh evidence in respect of one appellant.

Orders