Holland v The Queen - [2016] NZCA 621

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA160/2016
[2016] NZCA 621

BETWEEN	MICHAEL ANTHONY HOLLAND Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	20 October 2016
Court:	Cooper, Brewer and Peters JJ
Counsel:	A J D Bamford for Appellant Z R Johnston for Respondent
Judgment:	19 December 2016 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cooper J)

Background

One afternoon in July 2014, the police observed the appellant, Mr Holland, driving a vehicle in Takaka at speed and not wearing a seat belt. The vehicle was stopped and as a consequence of interactions that then took place the police searched the vehicle and found a quantity of methamphetamine together with approximately $11,000 in cash. A combined weight of approximately 100 grams of methamphetamine was located and seized from two bags found in the vehicle.
Mr Holland was charged with possession of methamphetamine for supply and supplying methamphetamine.[1] He pleaded not guilty to both charges and the matter proceeded to a trial before Judge Hastings and a jury in the Nelson District Court in October 2015.
[1]A further charge of possession of cannabis was laid following a search of his house. Mr Holland pleaded guilty to that charge when arraigned at the start of his trial.
At the end of the Crown’s case, Mr Holland elected to give evidence. In that evidence he sought to lay a foundation for a defence of compulsion in relation to the charge alleging supply of methamphetamine. Judge Hastings heard counsel on the question of whether there was a sufficient foundation for the defence to be left with the jury. Having reviewed the relevant evidence, the Judge ruled, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court IA v R,[2] that a sufficient evidential foundation had not been established.[3] He said that he would direct the jury that the evidence given by Mr Holland did not support a defence of compulsion and that they must put any sympathy for him generated by the evidence on one side.
[2]IA v R [2013] NZSC 88, [2014] 1 NZLR 17.
[3]R v Holland Nelson DC CRI-2014-042-1426, 21 October 2015.
The Judge indicated, however, that in the event of a guilty plea the issues raised might be taken into account on sentencing. At that point, Mr Holland pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to an effective term of five years’ imprisonment.[4]
[4]R v Holland [2015] NZDC 24319.
Mr Holland now appeals against his conviction. It is common ground that if Judge Hastings’ ruling was incorrect, the circumstances in which the guilty pleas were entered were such as would give rise to a miscarriage of justice for the purposes of s 232(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.[5]

The relevant evidence

[5]See R v Le Page [2005] 2 NZLR 845 at [20].

In his police interview, Mr Holland said that he had been selling methamphetamine in Nelson, which was sourced from the…

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 Holland v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Holland v The Queen [2016] NZCA 621
Case: [2016] NZCA 621
Decision Date: 19 December 2016 at 12.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Anthony Holland appealed against his conviction for possession of methamphetamine for supply and supplying methamphetamine. The case arose from an incident in July 2014, when the police stopped Mr Holland’s vehicle in Takaka. A search of the vehicle revealed a quantity of methamphetamine and approximately $11,000 in cash. Mr Holland was charged with possession of methamphetamine for supply and supplying methamphetamine. He pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial in the Nelson District Court in October 2015. The trial judge ruled that there was not a sufficient foundation for a defence of compulsion to be left with the jury. Mr Holland then pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to an effective term of five years’ imprisonment. He now appeals against his conviction.

The legal issues the Court was required to decide were whether the trial judge was correct in ruling that there was not a sufficient foundation for a defence of compulsion to be left with the jury, and if the ruling was incorrect, whether the circumstances in which the guilty pleas were entered were such as would give rise to a miscarriage of justice for the purposes of s 232(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

The Court held that the trial judge was correct in ruling that there was not a sufficient foundation for a defence of compulsion to be left with the jury. The Court found that Mr Holland had ample time to contact the police after the threats were made and before he committed the offence. The Court held that the defence of compulsion does not contemplate that an accused can subject themselves to danger for the purpose of committing a crime and then attempt to rely on the statutory defence of compulsion so as to excuse the fact they proceeded to offend. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

No further orders were made.

Orders