Jack-Kino v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 1468

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-463-000051

[2021] NZHC 1468

BETWEEN
GRAYSON JACK-KINO

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 14 June 2021

Counsel:

B Nabney for appellant

J Sutton for respondent for respondent

Judgment:

21 June 2021

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

[Appeal against conviction and sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 June 2021 at 2:30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Pollett Legal Limited, Tauranga

Counsel: W T Nabney, Tauranga Chambers, Tauranga

JACK-KINO v R [2021] NZHC 1468 [21 June 2021]

Introduction

[1] On 15 March 2021, Grayson Jack-Kino appeared in the Tauranga District Court before Judge A-M J Bouchier for a Judge alone trial. Judge Bouchier found Mr Jack-Kino guilty of possession of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply and possession of a precursor substance, namely iodine.1 On 20 April 2021, Judge Bouchier sentenced Mr Jack-Kino to eight years and one months’ imprisonment on those charges.2

[2] Mr Jack-Kino appeals against his conviction on the charges of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply and possession of a precursor substance. The issues raised in the conviction appeal are:

(a)whether the Judge erred in finding that Mr Jack-Kino knew that two bottles labelled “acetone” actually contained methamphetamine in liquid form; and

(b)whether the Judge erred in finding that Mr Jack-Kino was in possession of iodine for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine.

[3] In the event that his conviction appeal is unsuccessful, Mr Jack-Kino appeals the sentence imposed in respect of the lead charge of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply. The issue is whether the Judge erred in finding that Mr Jack-Kino had a significant role in the intended supply of methamphetamine, and consequently adopted a starting point that was too high.

Background

[4] On 7 October 2019, Mr Jack-Kino was inducted into a one year sentence of home detention at an address in Matapihi, Mount Maunganui. The property comprised a number of dwellings and outbuildings. Mr Jack-Kino lived in a Portacom building roughly the size of a bedroom.

1 R v Jack-Kino [2021] NZDC 9501.
2 R v Jack-Kino [2021] NZDC 7160.

[5] On 11 February 2020, Mr Jack-Kino was at home when the police executed a search warrant. During the search, the police found approximately 15.4 kilograms of iodine prills3 in a cardboard drum that had a duvet stuffed into the top of it, two bottles marked “acetone” that contained 100.9 grams of methamphetamine in liquid form, and a small ziplock bag (located in a small cannister) containing methamphetamine in powder form.

[6] Mr Jack-Kino gave evidence at trial. He said that when he was fixing a fence on the property to prevent animals escaping he came across a cardboard drum wrapped in a blanket. He unwrapped it and discovered a black plastic bag inside the drum. Although a large green label saying “QIodine” was printed onto the cardboard, Mr Jack-Kino said he did not see that. The drum…

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 Jack-Kino v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jack-Kino v The Queen [2021] NZHC 1468
Case: [2021] NZHC 1468
Decision Date: 21 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Jack-Kino v The Queen, Grayson Jack-Kino appeals against his conviction and sentence for possession of methamphetamine, possession of a precursor substance, and possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply. Jack-Kino was found guilty in the Tauranga District Court of the three charges and sentenced to eight years and one month's imprisonment. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the District Court Judge erred in finding Jack-Kino guilty of the charges and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate.

The central issues in the appeal against conviction were whether the Judge erred in finding that Jack-Kino knew that two bottles labelled "acetone" actually contained methamphetamine in liquid form, and whether the Judge erred in finding that Jack-Kino was in possession of iodine for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine. The High Court found that the Judge's adverse credibility finding in respect of Jack-Kino's evidence was well supported by the totality of the evidence, and that the evidence clearly supported the Judge's finding that Jack-Kino knew that the bottles labelled acetone contained methamphetamine. The High Court also found that the quantity of iodine possessed by Jack-Kino pointed strongly towards him possessing it for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine.

The appeal against sentence focused on whether the Judge erred in finding that Jack-Kino had a significant role in the intended supply of methamphetamine, and consequently adopted a starting point that was too high. The High Court found that the evidence was too scant to support the inference that Jack-Kino played a significant or leading role in the operation, and that his role was more limited than that. The High Court assessed the appropriate starting point as being four years and six months' imprisonment.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, while the appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence of eight years and one month's imprisonment was quashed and substituted with a sentence of six years and seven months' imprisonment.

Orders