Miles v The King - [2025] NZCA 177

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA497/2024
[2025] NZCA 177

BETWEEN	ZECHARIAH BERESFORD MILES Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	25 February 2025
Court:	Hinton, Woolford and Edwards JJ
Counsel:	D J Dufty for Appellant B D Tantrum and S M Murphy for Respondent
Judgment:	20 May 2025 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed.
B The sentence of seven years’ imprisonment is set aside and substituted with a sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Edwards J)

The appellant, Mr Miles, pleaded guilty to two sets of charges involving serious drug offending. He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment in the District Court at Auckland.[1] Mr Miles appeals against sentence on the basis that there were inadequate allowances for time spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail, rehabilitation, and remorse.

Offending

[1]R v Miles [2024] NZDC 15670 (sentencing notes) at [13].

The nature of the offending was summarised in Judge B A Gibson’s sentencing notes as follows:
[1]       Mr Miles, you are a 48-year-old man and you appear for sentence on a number of charges following a sentence indication that I gave you some time ago. You were initially caught up in a police operation in 2020 which was given the codename Operation Coupeville. You were the head of a group that was involved in the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine. There are two distinct, separate events covered by the charges. There is the offending that took place between 1 February 2020 and 10 August 2020 when you manufactured methamphetamine on a commercial scale at least four times and there were others involved. You supplied about 580 grams to an associate and that was methamphetamine you had manufactured yourself.
[2]       That particular set of offending came to an end after search warrants were executed at an address in Muriwai on 10 August 2020 and you were found at the time actively involved in a relatively sophisticated clandestine laboratory in the manufacture and further you were found in the possession of two kilograms of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply. There were another 452 grams of methamphetamine, numerous precursor substances and manufacturing equipment present at the site and also $315,350 in cash was also found plainly the proceeds of drug dealing.
[3]       Eighteen months later while you were on e-bail another warrant was executed at your bail address and you and Mr Leslie Swainson were found to be in the actual process of manufacturing methamphetamine. There was 120 grams of methamphetamine found at that time, there were precursor substances that were also found, another two lots of methamphetamine were found at the premises 150 grams and 70 grams and drug paraphernalia was also found and $7,870 in cash. The Crown seek forfeiture of the cash and obviously forfeiture orders will have to follow.
This offending gave rise to the following 20 charges:
(a)First set of offending (2020):
(i)one representative…

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 Miles v The King

Details

AGLC: Miles v The King [2025] NZCA 177
Case: [2025] NZCA 177
Decision Date: 20 May 2025 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zechariah Beresford Miles appeals against a sentence of seven years' imprisonment, imposed by the Auckland District Court for serious drug offences. The Court of Appeal, comprising Hinton, Woolford, and Edwards JJ, considered the appeal on the basis that the sentence was inadequately adjusted for time spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail, rehabilitation efforts, and remorse. The offending involved manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine, with Mr Miles leading a group in this illegal activity. He was caught in a police operation in 2020, and subsequently, while on bail, he was found again manufacturing drugs in 2022. He pleaded guilty to 20 charges arising from these incidents.

The legal issues centred on whether the sentence should have included additional allowances for time on EM bail, rehabilitation efforts, and remorse. The Court of Appeal held that the District Court judge was correct in not allowing a separate discount for remorse, as it was already accounted for in the guilty plea discount. Regarding rehabilitation, while the judge had allowed a 13% reduction for rehabilitative efforts, the Court considered that a 15% reduction was more appropriate. However, the Court found that this discrepancy alone was insufficient to deem the sentence manifestly excessive. The critical issue was the failure to consider the time Mr Miles spent on EM bail while participating in rehabilitation programs. The Court found that a credit for this period was mandatory under the Sentencing Act and should have been applied. A credit of three months was deemed appropriate, given the restrictive nature of the bail conditions and the overlap with the rehabilitation credit. Considering the additional credit for EM bail and the small increase for rehabilitation, the Court concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive and reduced it to six years and six months' imprisonment.

In summary, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence from seven years to six years and six months, primarily due to the failure to credit time spent on EM bail during the rehabilitation period.

Orders