This judgment was delivered by me on 9 May 2024 at 3.00pm.
………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Counsel/Solicitors:
W T Nabney, Barrister, Tauranga Pollett Legal, Tauranga
HUTTON v R [2024] NZHC 1146 [9 May 2024]
[1] Michael Hutton appeals the 18 July 2023 decision of Judge I D R Cameron in the District Court at Tauranga,1 finding him guilty of manufacturing a controlled drug,2 being methamphetamine.3
Background
[2] On 15 February 2021, police found a quantity of methamphetamine at an address in the Bay of Plenty’s Te Puna. Two men since have pleaded guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine at the address between 23 and 25 October 2020. Police investigations engaged Mr Hutton, who was placed at the address during that time by cellphone polling records.
[3] Divergently from his statement to police he was in Whanganui at the time, at trial, Mr Hutton admitted he also was present at the address for periods during that time. He gave evidence he attended at the address’ detached shed overnight on 23–24 October 2020 to repair and restore one of the two men’s damaged Harley Davidson motorcycle. That man occasionally would bring him methamphetamine to consume while he worked, and the following morning showed him methamphetamine being manufactured in a laundry at the address’ house.
[4] After briefly leaving the property to go home and to pick up parts for the repair work, Mr Hutton’s evidence was he returned to the address to continue working on the motorcycle until late on 25 October 2020. He then relocated the motorcycle to the man’s house in Pyes Pa, the man following in his own car (not being able to relocate the motorcycle himself, due injuries sustained in a crash leading to need for the motorcycle’s repair). Mr Hutton explained the divergence between his explanations as his being concerned not to become caught up in the two men’s offending.
Judgment on appeal
[5] Judge Cameron ‘considerably doubted’ Mr Hutton’s version of events as being inconsistent with honesty.4 Rather, contemporaneous text messages between
1 R v Hutton [2023] NZDC 10726.
2 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(b) and (2). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3 Section 2(1), definition of “controlled drug”; sch 1.
4 R v Hutton, above n 1, at [10(a)].
Mr Hutton and his partner — for example, in particular,5 at 6.40 pm on 23 October 2020 when he messaged his partner “it get boring waitn [sic] for it so while we. waitn gna do his bike in between” — were more consistent with Mr Hutton’s involvement with the methamphetamine manufacture, an involvement reinforced by his close association with the man,6 who supplied methamphetamine for his and…
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 Hutton v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hutton v The King [2024] NZHC 1146
Case
[2024] NZHC 1146
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the High Court of New Zealand, Michael Hutton appealed against his conviction by Judge I D R Cameron of manufacturing a controlled drug, methamphetamine, at an address in Te Puna, Bay of Plenty, between 23 and 25 October 2020. The appeal was heard by Jagose J on 9 May 2024. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Judge erred in assessing the evidence to convict Mr Hutton, particularly whether there was sufficient evidence to prove Mr Hutton’s involvement in the methamphetamine manufacture and whether the Judge appropriately considered Mr Hutton’s untruthfulness.
The court examined whether Mr Hutton’s involvement in the methamphetamine manufacture was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Judge had found Mr Hutton’s evidence of being present only to fix a motorcycle unconvincing and instead relied on text messages and other circumstantial evidence indicating Mr Hutton’s involvement. Jagose J noted that the Judge was entitled to reject Mr Hutton’s exculpatory evidence and did not need to consider alternative innocent explanations. The Judge’s assessment that Mr Hutton assisted in the manufacture, based on the context of the text messages and other evidence, was found to be rational and supported by the record. Jagose J concluded that the Judge did not err in his assessment of the evidence and that there was no miscarriage of justice.
The appeal was dismissed, and Mr Hutton’s conviction was upheld. The court found no basis to overturn the Judge’s decision, confirming that Mr Hutton was involved in the methamphetamine manufacture.