Henwood v R - [2014] NZCA 111

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA233/2013
[2014] NZCA 111

BETWEEN	WARREN ROBERT HENWOOD Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	25 March 2014
Court:	Stevens, Keane, Andrews JJ
Counsel:	W D McKean for the Appellant M D Downs for the Respondent
Judgment:	3 April 2014 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Andrews J)

Introduction

The appellant was found guilty on one charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply, following a trial before Judge Harvey and a jury in the District Court at Whangarei on 21 February 2013. The appellant was charged with two co-offenders, Bernard Monk and Nicholas Nordstrand. Mr Nordstrand pleaded guilty to the charge prior to trial. Mr Monk was tried with the appellant, and was also found guilty.[1] The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years and three months.[2]
[1]Mr Monk was also found guilty on a second charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply, relating to events on another occasion.
[2]R v Henwood DC Whangarei CRI-2011-088-2419, 9 April 2013 [Sentencing notes].
The appellant has appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The appeal against conviction is advanced on two grounds. First, the appellant submits that the verdict was unreasonable having regard to the evidence, and must be set aside pursuant to s 385(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961. Secondly, the appellant contends that the Judge did not sufficiently identify the essential elements of possession, and did not adequately direct the jury as to joint possession. The appellant advances his appeal against sentence on the ground that the Judge did not sufficiently distinguish between the respective culpability of the appellant and his co-offender.

Background

At 5.36 pm on 3 June 2011, the police executed a search warrant at the appellant’s address in Whangarei. The appellant lived in residential accommodation above a motor repair workshop in a commercial city block.
The police had been intercepting Mr Monk’s communications, and information they obtained indicated that Mr Monk had organised for Mr Nordstrand to travel to Auckland to pick up methamphetamine and bring it back to Whangarei. It was established that Mr Monk went to the appellant’s address at 5.04 pm. Mr Nordstrand arrived some time thereafter, but before 5.36 pm. Mr Nordstrand and Mr Monk had arranged to meet at the appellant’s address. The appellant was at the address at the time.
When the police entered the address, the appellant was found coming out of the toilet on the ground floor. Mr Monk was found upstairs in the kitchen-living area, and Mr Nordstrand was found in the appellant’s bedroom.
In the appellant’s bedroom, the police found 11.69 grams of methamphetamine, in a bag inside a magazine on a table. The bag of methamphetamine was open. There were further magazines on top of the magazine in which the bag of methamphetamine was found. The appellant’s wallet was found on top of the magazines. Also on the table were a $20 note…

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 Henwood v R

Details

AGLC: Henwood v R [2014] NZCA 111
Case: [2014] NZCA 111
Decision Date: 3 April 2014 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Warren Robert Henwood, was found guilty of possessing methamphetamine for supply following a trial in the District Court at Whangarei. He was sentenced to imprisonment for four years and three months. The appellant appealed both his conviction and the sentence. The appeal against conviction was based on the argument that the verdict was unreasonable and that the judge did not adequately direct the jury on the concept of joint possession. The appeal against sentence was based on the argument that the judge did not sufficiently distinguish between the respective culpability of the appellant and his co-offender.

The Court of Appeal found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable. The court noted that the Crown case was circumstantial, but it was for the jury to decide whether they were satisfied that the charge against the appellant had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court also found that the judge's direction to the jury on the elements of possession was adequate, and that the jury was not confused about the requirement to find the appellant guilty of possession for supply. The court further found that the sentence imposed was appropriate, given the jury's verdict that the appellant was involved in the methamphetamine transaction.

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

Orders