Hall v The Queen - [2019] NZCA 402

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA526/2018
[2019] NZCA 402

BETWEEN	JEFFERY JAMES HALL Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	15 August 2019
Court:	Brown, Collins and Wild JJ
Counsel:	M W Ryan for Appellant M J Lillico and J M Irwin for Respondent
Judgment:	2 September 2019 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Wild J)

Introduction

Mr Hall appeals his conviction and sentence on charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of manufacturing equipment, and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition.
We are dealing only with the appeal against conviction. Hearing of the sentence appeal stands adjourned awaiting this Court’s judgment in Zhang v R.[1]

Background

[1]Zhang v R CA606/2018.

On 10 July 2016 six armed police officers were deployed to a holiday home at 36 Dolphin Place in Tutukaka in Northland. It had been rented for eight days. The agent managing the property for its owners had noticed suspicious activity when she called to advise that a load of firewood was to be delivered. The details she reported led the police to believe the occupants might be manufacturing methamphetamine.
One of the officers was tasked with placing spikes on the road to prevent any vehicle leaving. Two officers were sent up a footpath and thence around to the rear of the property in case the occupants made off in that direction.
The other three officers were to enter the property from Dolphin Place and go up to the door to inquire what was going on. As those officers were approaching the front of the house, one of them paused and looked through a small gap in one of the windows which had been largely covered up. As the other two officers came around the front deck of the house, they saw hoses running out of the house through the open bifold doors into a bucket. One officer turned to the other and said he thought that indicated a clan lab. At almost exactly that moment a man came out through the bifold doors. One of the officers pointed his pistol at the man and shouted “Armed police. Stay where you are.” The man looked at the officers, muttered something like “Oh shit” and ran back inside. The two officers followed the man into the house with their pistols raised, followed shortly afterwards by the third officer who had been looking through the window. When they heard the officers at the front of the house shouting, the two officers stationed at the rear boundary of the property came down towards the house to assist.
As a result of what the police found in the house the appellant and four others were arrested and charged.

The pre-trial evidential rulings of the District Court and of this Court

In a pre-trial ruling, Judge de Ridder held the evidence obtained by the search of the house was admissible.[2] Mr…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hall v The Queen [2019] NZCA 402
Case: [2019] NZCA 402
Decision Date: 2 September 2019 at 12.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hall v The Queen involves Jeffery James Hall, who was convicted and sentenced for manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of manufacturing equipment, and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. Hall appealed against his conviction, but the Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed his appeal. The case involved a search of a holiday home in Tutukaka, Northland, where police discovered a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory. Hall's appeal against his conviction was based on three grounds: the evidence at trial undermined the factual basis for the Court's earlier judgment and its correctness; the earlier judgment was wrong in law; and the Court's balancing exercise under section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006 was flawed. The Court found that the appeal against conviction failed on all three grounds and dismissed the appeal. Consequently, Hall's conviction and sentence stand.

The legal issues in this case centered around the admissibility of evidence obtained during the search of the holiday home. The Court had previously ruled that the evidence was admissible despite the police officers exceeding the scope of the implied licence that permits anyone, including police officers, to go onto a property for the purpose of speaking to the occupants. The Court held that although the officers had become trespassers by peering through a window, the discovery of the clandestine laboratory had been made only seconds after they became trespassers. Furthermore, the Court held that exclusion of the evidence would be a disproportionate response to the low level of impropriety.

In dismissing Hall's appeal, the Court of Appeal found that there was no fresh or different evidence at trial that removed the evidentiary basis for the pre-trial ruling. The Court also found that there had been no relevant development in the law since the earlier judgment. Finally, the Court found no error in its balancing exercise under section 30 of the Evidence Act, holding that Hall's privacy interest in the "holiday let" was lower than the privacy interest people have in their own homes.

Orders