Hines v The Queen - [2018] NZCA 242

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA267/2017
[2018] NZCA 242

BETWEEN	WILLIAM HINES Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	14 May 2018
Court:	Miller, Ellis and Woolford JJ
Counsel:	G C Gotlieb and J G Krebs for Appellant RMA McCoubrey and FMT Culliney for Respondent
Judgment:	6 July 2018 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of 18 years and six months’ imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment is substituted.
C The minimum period of imprisonment of eight years and four months is quashed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellis J)

Following a trial before Downs J and a jury, Mr Hines and eight others were convicted of a number of serious methamphetamine related offences. The Judge sentenced the offenders on the basis that each of them had, in various ways, been responsible for manufacturing approximately one kilogram of methamphetamine in 2015. As the perceived architect of the group, Mr Hines was sentenced to 18 and a half years’ imprisonment. The Judge imposed a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of eight years and four months.[1]
[1]R v Hines [2017] NZHC 769 at [26].
Mr Hines and six of his co-defendants appealed their convictions, and Mr Hines and five of his co-defendants appealed their sentences. The appeals of all but Mr Hines were heard by this Court on 10 October 2017.[2] Judgment was delivered on 20 December 2017 (the earlier judgment).[3] All of the conviction appeals were dismissed but the sentence appeals by three of the group were allowed.
[2]Mr Hines’ appeal was not heard then due to his health issues.
[3]Edwardson v R [2017] NZCA 618.
The majority of the points raised by Mr Hines in relation to his conviction appeal have, effectively, been dealt with in the earlier judgment. For that reason, we are able to deal with them relatively briefly here.
As far as the sentence appeal is concerned, the reduction in sentence allowed in the earlier decision for two of Mr Hines’ co-defendants necessarily has an impact on Mr Hines’ position.[4] This Court’s reasoning that there had been an element of double counting in their sentences applies equally to Mr Hines.[5] As well, there are unique circumstances relating to Mr Hines’ health which also merit greater consideration in a sentencing context. Accordingly, those issues will be the principal focus of this judgment.
[4]Messrs T Maaka and Sadler. A third co-defendant, Mr Vijn, also successfully appealed his sentence, but the Court’s reasons for allowing his appeal are not relevant to Mr Hines’ appeal.
[5]Edwardson, above n 3, at [146]–[147] and [161]–[163].
Before turning to consider these matters, however, it is necessary to say a little more by way of background. What follows is largely taken from the earlier judgment.

Background

The relevant aspects of the Crown case against all defendants can be divided into…

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 Hines v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hines v The Queen [2018] NZCA 242
Case: [2018] NZCA 242
Decision Date: 6 July 2018 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal of William Hines against his conviction and sentence was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Mr Hines had been convicted of multiple methamphetamine related offences, and sentenced to 18 and a half years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of eight years and four months. Mr Hines appealed both his conviction and sentence. The appeal against his conviction was dismissed. In relation to the appeal against his sentence, the Court found that the sentence was excessive in light of the earlier decision reducing the sentences of two of Mr Hines’ co-defendants. The Court also found that the imposition of an MPI was not warranted in light of Mr Hines’ health issues, and quashed the MPI. The sentence of 18 years and six months’ imprisonment was quashed and a sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment was substituted.

Orders