Hall v R

Case [2020] NZCA 183 27 May 2020

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA526/2018
[2020] NZCA 183

BETWEEN	JEFFERY JAMES HALL Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA528/2018
BETWEEN	TAMA HATEPE WATENE-TOI Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA538/2018
BETWEEN	JULIAN DONALD ROBERTS Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	30 April 2020
Court:	Cooper, Dobson and Nation JJ
Counsel:	M W Ryan for Appellant Hall W D McKean for Appellant Watene-Toi S Tait for Appellant Roberts F Sinclair and J Mara for Respondent
Judgment:	27 May 2020 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeals against sentence are allowed.
BIn each case, the sentences imposed on the appellants for the manufacture of methamphetamine are set aside.
C    The sentence imposed on Mr Roberts for the possession of methamphetamine for supply is set aside.
D    In the case of Mr Roberts, concurrent sentences of eight years and 10 months’ imprisonment are substituted.
E    In the case of Mr Watene‑Toi, a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment is substituted.
FIn the case of Mr Hall, a sentence of eight years and six months’ imprisonment is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cooper J)

These three appeals are against sentences imposed by Judge K B de Ridder in the District Court at Whangarei on 17 August 2018 for manufacturing methamphetamine and related crimes. [1] They were among a number of appeals not set down for hearing pending delivery of this Court’s judgment in Zhang v R. [2]
[1]R v Roberts [2018] NZDC 17152 [Sentencing judgment].
[2]Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648.
The principles set out in that judgment are to be applied because the appeals were filed before the date of delivery of the judgment, and the application of the judgment would result in a more favourable outcome for the appellants.[3]
[3]At [188].
As has been explained in other recent judgments of this Court, the approach to be taken on appeal in such cases does not involve looking for error in the sentence imposed by the District Court Judge, but requires an assessment of the appropriate outcome of the sentencing exercise given application of the new guidelines established in Zhang.[4]

Background

[4]Su v R [2020] NZCA 128 at [7]; Miller v R [2020] NZCA 131 at [4]; and Royal v R [2020] NZCA 129 at [30].

On or around 3 July 2016, the appellant Mr Hall telephoned Coastal Holiday Homes Ltd to book a holiday house in Tutukaka for eight days from 7 July 2016. Mr Hall booked the property for eight to nine days at a cost of approximately $2,500 using a “Prezzie” card. On 9 July, a director of Coastal Holiday Homes went to the property to advise the occupants of an anticipated delivery of firewood. She noticed a van parked outside, which was in a rough condition. As she approached the house she saw that the windows were covered, but doors were open which she thought…

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 Hall v R

Details

AGLC: Hall v R [2020] NZCA 183
Case: [2020] NZCA 183
Decision Date: 27 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Three appeals were brought against sentences imposed by the District Court in respect of the manufacture of methamphetamine and related crimes. The appeals were heard together and judgment was given by Cooper J of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellants argued that the sentences imposed were too severe and did not properly reflect their personal circumstances. The Court of Appeal accepted that the original sentences were too severe but disagreed with some of the arguments put forward by the appellants in support of their appeals. The appeals were allowed and new sentences were substituted.

Julian Donald Roberts, Jeffery James Hall and Tama Hatepe Watene-Toi were among a number of people charged in connection with a methamphetamine manufacturing operation discovered in a holiday house in Tutukaka. The appellants were sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment for the manufacture of methamphetamine and related offences. The appeals were heard together and the Court of Appeal noted that the principles set out in Zhang v R should be applied because the appeals were filed before the date of delivery of that judgment, and the application of the judgment would result in a more favourable outcome for the appellants. The Court of Appeal found that the starting points adopted by the sentencing Judge were too high in the cases of Roberts and Watene-Toi. The Court of Appeal also found that the appellants were not entitled to reductions in their sentences on the bases argued by their counsel. The appeals were allowed and new sentences were substituted.

Orders