Legal Research
Cases
Harding v The Queen

Harding v The Queen

Case [2016] NZHC 1855 10 August 2016

Jurisdiction

Appeal

Breach of Contract

Unconscionable Conduct

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2014-088-003309 [2016] NZHC 1855

BETWEEN
EVANDA HAYES HARDING

KIATA SONNY PENE CASEY REWHA TYSON HARDING Applicants

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 25 and 26 July 2016

Appearances:

Maria Pecotic and Annabel Maxwell-Scott for Evanda Harding
Lucy Postlewaight for Kiata Pene
Nick Leader for Casey Rewha
Baden Meyer and Ted Faleauto for Tyson Harding
Michael Smith and Richard Annandale for the Respondent

Judgment:

10 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J [On s 147 applications]

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 August 2016 at 4:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar
Date:

HARDING & ORS v THE QUEEN [2016] NZHC 1855 [10 August 2016]

Introduction

[1] The applicants each faced charges arising out of a large scale Police operation which investigated the activities of a number of people claimed to be part of a sophisticated methamphetamine manufacturing operation. Their trial commenced on
27 June 2016. The Crown’s evidence was mostly in the form of visual surveillance

and intercepted audio communications.

[2] Following the conclusion of the Crown’s case the defendants applied under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (“the Act”) to be discharged on the grounds that a properly directed jury could not reasonably convict.1

[3] After hearing argument I allowed the application by Tyson Harding and discharged him on Charge 8. I also discharged Casey Rewha on Charge 7.

[4] I dismissed the balance of the applications.

[5] I advised counsel of my results decision but indicated reasons in writing would follow. I now give those reasons.

Background facts

[6] In the second half of 2014, the Police commenced an investigation into a methamphetamine manufacturing operation based in Northland. The primary focus was on the activities of Brownie Harding. But the investigation also examined the activities of a large number of others including members of his family, friends and acquaintances. The operation was codenamed Taskforce Easter.

[7] Taskforce Easter ran over several months from September to November 2014 and into December 2014. Of primary interest to the Police were the activities which took place in and around a house situated at 278 Taipuha Road, Waiotira (“the address”), a tiny rural community situated approximately 30 kilometres southwest of
Whangarei.

1 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 147(4)(c).

[8] The sophistication and extent of the Police’s investigation techniques increased as the surveillance progressed. Initially only a single remote video camera scanned one side of the house and property providing an oblique, but incomplete and distant view. This was improved by the later installation of a closer second camera which covered the driveway and the front of the house. During the period of the operation, four covert entries into the house were undertaken by members of the Special Tactical Group (“STG”). On 17 October 2014 a listening device was installed inside the house. Additionally, warrants were obtained authorising the interception of private communications on a large number of mobile telephones.

[9] The information obtained from…

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 Harding v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Harding v The Queen [2016] NZHC 1855
Case: [2016] NZHC 1855
Decision Date: 10 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a number of applicants who faced criminal charges arising out of a large scale Police operation which investigated the activities of a number of people claimed to be part of a sophisticated methamphetamine manufacturing operation. The applicants each applied for discharge under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 on the basis that there was insufficient evidence for a properly directed jury to convict. The court had to consider whether a properly directed jury could reasonably convict each of the applicants on the charges they faced. The applicants each made arguments on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to support the charges against them. The court found that the evidence against Tyson Harding was insufficient to support the charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply. The court was not satisfied there was sufficient evidence of an intention on his part to exercise control over the bag and its contents. The court found that Casey Rewha’s involvement in the conspiracy charge was insufficient to support a conviction. The court found that the evidence against Kiata Pene was sufficient to support the charges against him. The court found that the evidence against Evanda Harding was sufficient to support the manufacturing charges against him.

Orders