Griffin v R - [2020] NZHC 548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-463-11

[2020] NZHC 548

BETWEEN
ASHLEY GRIFFIN

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 18 March 2020

Appearances:

R Nabney for Appellant (on instructions from WT Nabney) MJ Lillico for Respondent

Judgment:

18 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 March 2020 at 12.45 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

GRIFFIN v R [2020] NZHC 548 [18 March 2020]

[1] Mr Griffin appeals a sentence of three years and four months’ imprisonment imposed on him.

[2] Mr Griffin pleaded guilty to seven charges; namely, supplying methamphetamine (a representative charge)1, possessing methamphetamine for supply2, one charge of possession of cannabis for supply3, and various firearms charges.4

[3] He was found in possession of 37 grams of methamphetamine. Text messages indicated supply transactions to 18 individuals, and a supply of three grams in respect of five of the supply transactions.

[4] The nub of this appeal is whether the starting point adopted of four years was excessive, bearing in mind the principle of “parity”. His co-offender, Ms Jayes, received a starting point of three years’ imprisonment for her methamphetamine offending. Ms Jayes received an end sentence of 12 months’ home detention.

Facts

[5] On 26 May 2017, Mr Griffin and Ms Jayes were staying at a motel in Tauranga. Mr Griffin was located at the address by Police. The Police searched Mr Griffin, the motel room and his motor vehicle. The following items were located in the motel room:

(a)A sawn off 12 gauge shotgun;

(b)Six shotgun cartridges;

(c)A telescopic sight;

(d)A tin of 500 .77 shotgun pellets;

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a).
2      Sections 6(1)(f) and 6(2).
3      Sections 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(c).
4      Arms Act 1983, ss 45(1) and 50.

(e)Five live rounds of .22 ammunition;

(f)A glass pipe used to smoke methamphetamine;

(g)A pill box containing 14 different coloured pills;

(h)Approximately $38,215.00 in cash;

(i)A bong to smoke cannabis;

(j)A notebook containing what appeared to be a ticklist; and

(k)Various quantities of cannabis leaf material.

In the Ford motor vehicle, Police found:

(a)An over/under 12 gauge shotgun;

(b)A .22 rifle lever action rifle with a spent cartridge ejected from the firing chamber;

(c).303 rifle magazine;

(d)Various items of 12 gauge and .22 long rifle ammunition located throughout the car under the spare wheel;

(e)Two ounce deal bags of cannabis;

(f)Two boxes of 50 rounds of .22 long rifle ammunition;

(g)Glass pipes used to smoke methamphetamine;

(h)Electronic scales;

(i)Numerous new small plastic “point” bags; and

(j)Approximately 37 grams of methamphetamine.

[7]On Mr Griffin, the police found:

(a)$250 cash separate to the wallet;

(b)$750 in the wallet;

(c)A lock knife; and

(d)29 small point bags.

[8] When he was interviewed by the Police, Mr Griffin said that he used methamphetamine and cannabis, but denied selling them. He did not know how much methamphetamine he possessed. He gave an alternative…

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 Griffin v R

Details

AGLC: Griffin v R [2020] NZHC 548
Case: [2020] NZHC 548
Decision Date: 18 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ashley Griffin, appealed a sentence of three years and four months’ imprisonment for methamphetamine supply, possession of cannabis for supply, and various firearms charges. Griffin had been found in possession of 37 grams of methamphetamine and text messages indicated supply transactions to 18 individuals. Griffin’s co-offender, Ms Jayes, received a starting point of three years’ imprisonment for her methamphetamine offending and an end sentence of 12 months’ home detention. The appeal was concerned with whether the starting point adopted of four years was excessive, bearing in mind the principle of “parity”. The court had to decide whether the starting point was sufficiently coherent and explicable and whether it was justified in light of the evidence presented.

The court found that the starting point reflected the methamphetamine charges alone and the one-year difference between the co-offenders’ starting points could be explained by the fact Griffin was being charged with two offences – supply and possession. However, the court discounted this explanation based on the chronology provided by the interception warrant and focused instead on the differentiation of role inferred by the District Court Judge. The sentencing Judge records his “sense” that Ms Jayes’ role in the offending was a “lesser one” but on the material before the court, there appears a degree of chance in terms of timing of the arrest, which in-turn impacted the charges. The court considered it was somewhat difficult to say that Ms Jayes’ role was so significantly less than Griffin that it justifies the difference of 12 months in starting points. The text evidence suggested that they both supplied similar quantities of methamphetamine to willing buyers.

The court was satisfied that a one-year difference between the starting points was not justified, having regard to parity between the co-offenders. The court allowed the appeal and reduced the starting point for Griffin’s sentence to three and a half years’ imprisonment. The court endorsed the methodology adopted by the sentencing judge and did not disturb the nominal sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment on the remaining charges, to be served concurrently. The final sentence was two years nine months on the methamphetamine charges.

Orders