Matchitt v The Queen - [2019] NZHC 409

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2018-463-000097 [2019] NZHC 409

BETWEEN
LEONARD JACKSON MATCHITT

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 25 February 2019

Appearances:

G Tomlinson for the Appellant O Salt for the Respondent

Judgment:

12 March 2019

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 March 2019 at 11.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………………………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Gowing & Co Lawyers, Whakatane Pollett Legal Ltd, Tauranga

LEONARD JACKSON MATCHITT v R [2019] NZHC 409 [12 March 2019]

[1] The appellant, Mr Matchitt, pleaded guilty to four charges in the District Court at Opotiki on 20 September 2018:

(a)possession of methamphetamine for supply (some 2 grams);1

(b)possession of a utensil used for the consumption of methamphetamine (a glass pipe);2

(c)unlawful possession of a firearm (a .22 pistol);3 and

(d)receiving stolen property (valued at $10,000).4

[2] That same day, Judge Coyle sentenced Mr Matchitt to two years and one month’s imprisonment in relation to these charges.5

[3] The Judge also made a forfeiture order in relation to $963 discovered by Police at Mr Matchitt’s address. The District Court accepted this cash to be proceeds of the appellant’s drug dealing.

[4] Mr Matchitt appeals against his sentence only. He submits that the sentence of imprisonment imposed was manifestly excessive. This occurred, he submits, primarily because the District Court Judge failed to give proper regard to the totality principle.6 He says the sentence should be under two years’ imprisonment and a residential rehabilitation penalty would be the least restrictive outcome.

Background

[5] On 28 June 2018, Police executed a search warrant at Mr Matchitt’s address in Te Kaha. He had lived there with his partner and three children in a caravan for ten months at the time of his arrest. Previously he had been a serving prisoner. His

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and (2). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 13(1)(a) and (3). Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment and a fine of $500.
3      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1). Maximum penalty 4 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $5,000.
4      Crimes Act 1961, ss 246-247. Maximum penalty 7 years’ imprisonment.
5      Police v Matchitt [2018] NZDC 20033.
6      Sentencing Act 2002, s 85(2).

children are understood to be now living with other whānau members because of Mr Matchitt’s prior family violence offending.

[6] As soon as the Police arrived, Mr Matchitt told them he had a firearm and methamphetamine on the premises. The methamphetamine, pistol, and glass pipe to which the charges relate were retrieved from the caravan by Police during their search. Police also retrieved the $963 in cash that has been forfeited to the Crown.

[7] Mr Matchitt freely admitted to Police at the time of the search that he uses methamphetamine and deals in small amounts of the drug to sustain his habit. Regarding the firearm, he told Police…

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 Matchitt v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Matchitt v The Queen [2019] NZHC 409
Case: [2019] NZHC 409
Decision Date: 12 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Leonard Jackson Matchitt, the appellant, pleaded guilty to four charges in the District Court at Opotiki on 20 September 2018. These charges included possession of methamphetamine for supply, possession of a utensil used for the consumption of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of a firearm, and receiving stolen property. Matchitt was sentenced to two years and one month’s imprisonment, which he now appeals, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. He contends that the District Court Judge failed to properly consider the totality principle. The central issue in this appeal is whether the District Court’s sentencing was manifestly excessive, particularly in relation to the uplift for the firearms charge.

The High Court considered the appellant’s argument that the uplift for the firearms charge was excessive and the final sentence was disproportionate to the overall gravity of the offending. The Court examined whether the starting point for the drug charges and the uplift for the firearms charge were within the proper range. It concluded that while the starting point for the drug charges was within range, the uplift for the firearms charge was arguably too high. However, the Court found that the difference of three months alone in the uplift for the firearms charge would not lead to the sentence imposed being manifestly excessive. The Court agreed with Judge Coyle’s assessment that a custodial sentence was appropriate, given the appellant's history of disregarding release conditions, drug-related offending, and possession of the firearm. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

No orders were made as a result of this appeal.

Orders