Hearing:	19 June 2013
Court:	Randerson, Courtney and Dobson JJ
Counsel:	P L Borich for Gilfedder M M Wilkinson-Smith for Heemi H E Juran for Gordon B D Tantrum and B Finn for respondent
Judgment:	11 September 2013 at 3:00pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AMs Gilfedder’s appeal against conviction is dismissed.

BMs Gordon’s appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.
CMr Heemi’s appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Dobson J)

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction
Grounds of appeal
Ms Gilfedder’s appeal

Absence of propensity warning
Counsel’s submissions
Discussion
Particulars of offences required to be proven?
“Remainder” (of any previous supply) should be expressly excluded
Defence not adequately put

Ms Gordon’s appeal

Absence of propensity warning
“Remainder” argument/lack of balance
Appeal against sentence

Mr Heemi’s appeal

Absence of propensity warning
Counsel’s submissions
Discussion
Inadequate parties direction
Unbalanced summing-up in relation to count 42
Appeal against sentence

Alternative Crown response: reliance on post-conviction admissions
Summary

[1]
[10]
[13]
[13]
[13]
[25]
[42]
[51]

[62]
[65]
[65]
[74]
[80]
[91]
[91]
[93]
[98]
[105]
[112]
[117]
[123]

[134]

Introduction

The present appellants were three of seven accused who were convicted after a jury trial before Woolford J in the High Court at Auckland that took some eight and a half weeks between April and June 2012. The indictment contained some 85 counts[1] relating to the manufacture and distribution of significant quantities of methamphetamine. The Crown case was that the most significant of the offenders, a Mr Van de Ven, arranged for acquisition of pre-cursor materials and supervised the manufacture of the methamphetamine with the participation of three others, on various of the occasions on which methamphetamine was manufactured. Mr Van de Ven then supplied the methamphetamine to four re-sellers of methamphetamine, each of whom was alleged to have a pattern of supplying methamphetamine to their own customers.
[1]Guilty verdicts were returned on all but one count which did not involve any of the present appellants.
Mr Van de Ven’s activities occurred at a residential property in Jupiter Street, Papakura and at another property at Hunua. The Crown case was that the re-sellers were supplied with methamphetamine at Jupiter Street.
Mr Heemi was one of those charged with participation in the manufacturing processes. He was convicted on three counts of manufacturing methamphetamine and sentenced to nine years and six months imprisonment. Mr Heemi has appealed both his convictions and sentence.
Ms Gilfedder was convicted on 12 counts of possession of methamphetamine for supply. She was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment. She appeals against her convictions.
Ms Gordon was convicted on 14 counts of possession of methamphetamine for supply. She was sentenced to three years and six months imprisonment. Ms Gordon appeals against her…

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 Gilfedder v R

Details

AGLC: Gilfedder v The Queen [2013] NZCA 426
Case: [2013] NZCA 426
Decision Date: 11 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence of Joan Mary Gilfedder, Christine Gordon and Wati Heemi, who were convicted of offences related to the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. The appellants argued that the trial judge failed to give a propensity warning, that particulars of offences required to be proven were not sufficiently particularised, and that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in failing to give a propensity warning, that the particulars of offences required to be proven were not inadequately particularised, and that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive. The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

Orders