LOUIS HALL AND THE KING - [2024] NZCA 532

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA274/2024
[2024] NZCA 532

BETWEEN	LOUIS HALL Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	1 October 2024
Court:	Mallon, Gwyn and Moore JJ
Counsel:	R M Mansfield KC and H C W Redwood for the Appellant M W Nathan for the Respondent
Judgment:	21 October 2024 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed. The minimum period of imprisonment of 40 per cent is set aside.
BAll other aspects of the sentence appeal are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Gwyn J)

Introduction

Mr Hall, the appellant, was sentenced on 8 April 2024 in the District Court at Auckland,[1] after pleading guilty to the following offending:
(a)participating in an organised criminal group;[2]
(b)offering to supply no less than three kg of methamphetamine (representative);[3]
(c)MDMA offending involving approximately no less than 4.25 kg and an unknown commercial quantity of “Pink Porsche pills” (a count of possession for supply, supplying and offering to supply (all representative));[4]
(d)cannabis offending involving no less than 56.47 kg (a count of possession for supply, supplying and offering to supply (all representative));[5]
(e)unlawful possession of a firearm;[6]
(f)receiving offending, involving a stolen Toyota Hiace motor vehicle valued at $18,000;[7] and
(g)driving offending, namely driving whilst suspended (third or subsequent),[8] exceeding 80 km/h posted speed limit,[9] careless driving,[10] driving contrary to alcohol interlock licence third or subsequent (two counts)[11] and driving with alcohol on his breath while on a zero-alcohol licence.[12]
[1]R v Hall [2024] NZDC 7911 [sentencing notes].
[2]Crimes Act 1961, s 98A (maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment).
[3]Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a) (maximum penalty life imprisonment).
[4]Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(b) (maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment); and s 6(1)(c) and (2)(b) (maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment).
[5]Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(c) (maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment); and s 6(1)(e) and (2)(c) (maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment).
[6]Arms Act 1983, s 45(1) (maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $5,000).
[7]Crimes Act, ss 246(1) and 247(a) (maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment).
[8]Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(c) and (4) (maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $6,000).
[9]Land Transport Act, s 40; Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999, cls 3–4 and sch 1; and Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, r 5.1 (maximum penalty fine not exceeding $1,000).
[10]Land Transport Act, ss 8 and 37 (maximum penalty a fine not exceeding $3,000).
[11]Section 32(1)(b) and (4) (maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $6,000).
[12]Section 57AA(1) and (3) (maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,250).
Mr Hall was sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of five years’ imprisonment.[13] He now appeals that sentence on the overall ground that it was manifestly excessive.

Background

[13]Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [44], [47] and [49]. Mr Hall was also disqualified from driving.

Mr Hall had a leading role…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read LOUIS HALL AND THE KING and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZCA 532
Decision Date: 21 October 2024 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal of Louis Hall, the appellant, against the King, the respondent, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on Mr Hall by the District Court at Auckland. Mr Hall had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including participating in an organised criminal group, drug supply, possession of a firearm, and various driving offences. The District Court sentenced Mr Hall to 12 years and six months' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 40 per cent. The appellant's counsel argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive on several grounds, including the starting point for the methamphetamine charges, the uplift for additional charges, the reduction for a guilty plea, and the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal found that while the starting point for the methamphetamine charges might have been slightly high, considering Mr Hall's role as a leader in the drug syndicate, the total sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court concluded that the uplift for the additional charges was justified given the scale and commercial nature of the offending. The reduction for the guilty plea was deemed appropriate considering the circumstances. However, the Court held that the imposition of a 40 per cent minimum period of imprisonment was not necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing and constituted an error. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the minimum period of imprisonment, while dismissing all other aspects of the sentence appeal.

Orders