Meech v Police - [2014] NZHC 2590

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI 2014-425-000031 [2014] NZHC 2590

ROSS WILLIAM MEECH Appellant

v

POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 21 October 2014

Counsel:

D G Slater for Appellant
E Higbee for Respondent

Judgment:

21 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

[1] Mr Meech pleaded guilty to the following charges:1

(a) three charges of theft of property worth more than $1,000 respectively occurring between 1 October 2013 and 27 April 2014, one on 2 May
2014 and one between 14 May 2014 and 20 May 2014;2

(b) one charge of burglary which occurred between 24 April 2014 and

27 April 2014;3 and

(c) one charge of supplying the class B drug morphine between 26 April

2014 and 7 May 2014.4

1      Police v Turner DC Invercargill CRI-2014-025-936, 14 August 2014.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(b). Each offence is punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years.
3      Section 231. This offence is punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years.

MEECH v POLICE [2014] NZHC 2590 [21 October 2014]

[2] He was sentenced to a total sentence of two years and ten months’ imprisonment. He now challenges that sentence as manifestly excessive. Two factors are highlighted for my consideration, namely:

(a) The Judge erroneously believed that a cell phone used to sell drugs was stolen; and

(b)The Judge, relying on observations of the Court of Appeal in R v Wallace,5 wrongly categorised the drug dealing as “small commercial dealing in class B drugs” attracting “sentences up to five years imprisonment”.

The facts

[3] The facts giving rise to these charges were set out in Judge Turner’s

sentencing notes as follows:6

[2] The facts of your offending are these. First, the theft between October 2013 and April 2014. The victim of the offending is your mother and sister. During this period they noted numerous items had been stolen from your mother’s address and motor vehicle. This included cash, a Navman and iPod, a guitar, jewellery, hard drives, memory sticks, a gas heater, gas bottle, food, all of which is said to be valued at over $5,000.

[3] The next offence was a burglary committed over ANZAC weekend in 2014. Your mother had the responsibility of feeding a friend’s cat while the owner of the property was away. On 26 April you used the key that your mother had to gain entry to the address. You stole a 42 inch television, two boxes containing 20 morphine capsules, 40 other tablets which also contained morphine, and food.

[4] The following day you sold the television to your associates. You used the cellphone to contact associates to find buyers for the drugs and you later sold all of the morphine capsules and the other tablets which contained morphine, save for some which you consumed yourself.

[5] On 1 May the victim of the next offence offered you accommodation. You told her that you were having problems with your mother, that you had nowhere to…

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 Meech v Police

Details

AGLC: Meech v Police [2014] NZHC 2590
Case: [2014] NZHC 2590
Decision Date: 21 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ross William Meech challenged the sentence imposed on him by the District Court for a series of thefts, a burglary and drug dealing. The High Court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issues were whether the sentencing judge had erred in characterising the theft of a cell phone as an aggravating factor and whether he had erred in categorising the drug dealing as "small commercial dealing in class B drugs".

The Court held that the error in characterising the theft of the cell phone did not warrant reconsideration of the sentence given the multiple thefts of large items. However, the Court agreed that the sentencing judge's characterisation of the drug dealing as "small commercial dealing" could lead to error in sentence. The Court noted that the sentencing judge should have adopted a more nuanced approach to sentencing for drug dealing given the varied circumstances in which it might occur. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the overall sentence was within range for this type of criminal behaviour. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders