Hedges v Police - [2014] NZHC 3240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2014-463-84 [2014] NZHC 3240

BETWEEN
SHANE TIMOTHY HEDGES

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:
16 December 2014

(Heard at Rotorua)

Appearances:

R Nabney for Appellant
J Heerdegen for Respondent

Judgment:

16 December 2014

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

HEDGES v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 3240 [16 December 2014]

[1] Mr Hedges pleaded guilty in the District Court to two charges of being in possession of cannabis, one charge of possession of cannabis seeds, one charge of receiving, two charges of selling cannabis, one charge of being in possession of cannabis for supply, one charge of being in unlawful possession of a firearm and one charge of being in possession of ammunition.

[2] On 29 October 2014, Judge Geoghegan sentenced Mr Hedges to an effective sentence of two years two months imprisonment.1 Mr Hedges appeals against sentence on the basis that the Judge erred in the manner in which he structured the sentence. He contends that this led to an end sentence that was manifestly excessive.

Background

[3] The charges were laid as a result of two incidents that occurred six days apart. On 7 August 2014, Mr Hedges was a passenger in a motor vehicle at Papamoa Beach. The police searched the vehicle and found a metal tin in the glovebox. This contained three grams of cannabis. Mr Hedges told the police that the cannabis belonged to him, and that he used it on a regular basis.

[4] Six days later, on 13 August 2014, the police executed a search warrant at Mr Hedges’ address. When they searched the address, they found a number of items consistent with the property being used as a base from which cannabis was being sold on a regular basis. Located next to the oven on the floor, the police found a plastic container that contained a plastic bag with cannabis head material inside. This weighed 23 grams. Also inside the plastic bag were a number of cut-down square pieces of tinfoil and a small set of digital scales. The police found a piece of paper in a kitchen drawer that was consistent with being a tick list. In another drawer in the lounge area, the police found a bag of cannabis cabbage material that weighed 36 grams. The police also found 308 cannabis seeds in a wooden box on
top of the set of drawers in the lounge area.

1 New Zealand Police v Hedges DC Tauranga CRI-2014-070-002905, 29 October 2014.

[5] The police also found a blue bag in the lounge area that contained a .22 calibre rifle. The barrel of this weapon had been sawn off. Inside another compartment in the bag was a box of .22 ammunition containing 15 rounds. In another compartment in the bag the police found a magazine for the rifle loaded with five rounds.

[6] Mr Hedges told the police he had been selling and supplying cannabis but only to known associates.…

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 Hedges v Police

Details

AGLC: Hedges v Police [2014] NZHC 3240
Case: [2014] NZHC 3240
Decision Date: 16 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hedges v Police, the appellant, Shane Timothy Hedges, appealed against his sentence which was imposed by Judge Geoghegan in the Tauranga District Court. Hedges had been convicted of various drug-related offences, including possession and sale of cannabis, possession of cannabis seeds and ammunition, possession of a firearm, and possession of a stolen laptop. The sentence imposed was two years and two months imprisonment. The appeal centred around the structure of the sentence and the appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to errors in how the sentence was structured. The central legal issue was whether the District Court Judge had erred in the manner in which he structured the sentence, leading to a sentence that was manifestly excessive.

The High Court found that the starting point of two years for the cannabis-related charges was appropriate, given Hedges' possession of cannabis on two separate occasions and the presence of cannabis seeds. The Court also upheld the 12-month uplift for the firearm and ammunition, as it was closely connected to Hedges' drug dealing activities. However, the Court found that the discount applied for remorse and previous good character was insufficient, and suggested that a more appropriate discount would have been three months, resulting in a sentence of two years and one month imprisonment. Despite this, the Court concluded that the sentence imposed was only one month greater than this suggested sentence and therefore could not be considered wrong or manifestly excessive. Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders