Legal Research
Cases
James v The King

James v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 1115 8 May 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2024-463-31

CRI-2024-463-32 [2024] NZHC 1115

BETWEEN
CASEY EREWHERO JAMES

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing:
7 May 2024

(Heard at Tauranga)

Appearances:

A D Hill for appellant T W Afoa for Crown

Date of judgment:

8 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 May 2024 at 11.00am.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Andrew Hill Law, Rotorua Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua

JAMES v R [2024] NZHC 1115 [8 May 2024]

[1] Casey James appeals the 19 January 2024 decision of Judge A J S Snell in the District Court at Rotorua,1 sentencing him to two years and four months’ imprisonment on his guilty pleas to a variety of Crown and police charges.2

Background

[2] On locating Mr James at an associate’s address on 30 December 2022, pursuant to a warrant for his arrest for breaching bail, police found him in possession of 1.59 g of methamphetamine. Cell phone records obtained pursuant to a subsequent warrant established, over the preceding month, he possessed at least 30 g of methamphetamine for supply. These are the Crown charges.

[3] After Mr James’ arrest, 5 g of methamphetamine were located in his sunglasses case. He also had a utensil for the consumption of methamphetamine in his possession. He was in breach of standard release conditions’ requirement he report to a probation officer.3 Further charges — of wilful damage, possession of methamphetamine and possession of a second utensil — arose when court security staff scanned his backpack on entry to a courthouse on 22 December 2022. They located 2.48 g of methamphetamine and a pipe in the backpack, after which Mr James became angry and broke a glass panel. These are the police charges.

Judgment under appeal

[4] Judge Snell adopted both counsels’ suggested starting point of two years and nine months’ imprisonment,4 with reference to the bands and roles as set out in Zhang.5 The Judge considered Mr James’ drug offending quantity of 35 g of methamphetamine
— “operating [his own] little band of customers”6 — was a “small drug-dealing

1      R v James [2024] NZDC 1050.
2      Possession of methamphetamine for supply (x 6) (Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)). Maximum penalty life imprisonment; possession of methamphetamine (x 2) (Misuse of Drugs Act, s 7). Maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment; possession of utensil for methamphetamine consumption (x 2) (Misuse of Drugs Act, s 13). Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment or $500 fine; wilful damage (Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $2,000 fine; breach of prison release conditions (Parole Act 2002, s 71). Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment or $2,000 fine; and failure to answer District Court bail (Bail Act 2000, s 62). Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment or $2,000 fine.
3      Parole Act, s 14(1).
4      R v James, above n 1, at [12]–[13] and [20].
5      Zhang v R

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 James v The King

Details

AGLC: James v The King [2024] NZHC 1115
Case: [2024] NZHC 1115
Decision Date: 8 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Casey Erewhero James appealed against his 19 January 2024 sentencing in the District Court at Rotorua. James was found guilty of a variety of drug-related and other charges, including possession of methamphetamine for supply, possession of methamphetamine, and wilful damage. The sentencing judge, Judge A J S Snell, imposed a sentence of two years and four months' imprisonment. James appealed, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly in relation to the uplifts for additional charges and the discounts for background factors and guilty pleas.

The legal issues for the High Court to determine were whether there was an error in the sentence imposed by the District Court and whether a different sentence should be imposed on appeal. The High Court noted that it would only allow the appeal if it was satisfied that there was an error in the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed. The High Court would not intervene if the sentence was within a range properly justified by accepted sentencing principles.

The High Court found no error in the District Court's sentence. The starting point of two years and nine months' imprisonment was well within the available range, even if a higher starting point was possible. The additional uplifts for the extra charges and the discounts for the background factors and guilty pleas were all within the margins of reasonable assessment. The total sentence of two years and four months' imprisonment was well within a range properly justified by accepted sentencing principles and was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of two years and four months' imprisonment was upheld.

Orders