Paul v The Queen - [2013] NZCA 45

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA332/2012
[2013] NZCA 45

BETWEEN WILLIAM GORDON PAUL
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 14 February 2013

Court: White, Simon France and Asher JJ

Counsel: A J S Snell for Appellant
M J Lillico for Respondent

Judgment: 7 March 2013 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal against sentence is allowed.

BThe sentence is quashed and a sentence of seven years six months’ imprisonment is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by White J)

Mr Paul appeals against his sentence of eight years four months’ imprisonment on charges of supplying methamphetamine, conspiring to supply methamphetamine and supplying cannabis.[1]
[1] R v Singh HC Napier CRI-2010-041-3793, 10 May 2012.
Mr Paul was involved with a group of people supplying methamphetamine and selling cannabis over a six month period in 2010. Mr Paul pleaded guilty to these charges in October 2011, following committal and two trial call-overs in mid-2011.
In sentencing Mr Paul in the High Court, Ronald Young J adopted a starting point of nine years for the methamphetamine offending and a cumulative sentence of eighteen months’ imprisonment for the cannabis offending. The combined starting point was therefore ten and a half years’ imprisonment.[2]
[2] At [53]–[55].
The Judge then deducted a 20 per cent discount for early guilty pleas, but declined to make any other discount.[3]
[3] At [56].
In support of Mr Paul’s appeal, Mr Snell accepted that the starting point was appropriate, but submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive on two grounds:
(a)Mr Paul ought to have been given a further discount to reflect his remorse and rehabilitation efforts; and
(b)he ought to have been given the full discount of 25 per cent for his guilty pleas.
We consider each ground in turn.

Discount for remorse and rehabilitation

On this issue Ronald Young J said:
[51] I accept that you have made efforts to rid yourself of your addiction. And I express the hope that this will be successful. If it is it will be hugely advantageous to you on your release from prison and of course if you have made progress and continue to do so, it will be advantageous to you in prison and relevant to parole. But it does not convince me that you should have a discount from your start sentence.
[52] You have a history of crime and drug offending. You cannot claim to come to Court as a first offender. Whether you stay crime free is yet to be proven. I also express, however, my view that you should be provided by Corrections with the earliest opportunity for your drug rehabilitation in prison.
Mr Snell submitted that the Judge had erred in failing to recognise that, as recorded in Mr Paul’s pre-sentence reports and other information before the Judge, Mr Paul was clearly remorseful and had not only attended individual alcohol and drug counselling sessions in Napier in 2011 but had also successfully completed a four month residential Salvation…

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 Paul v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Paul v The Queen [2013] NZCA 45
Case: [2013] NZCA 45
Decision Date: 7 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the New Zealand Court of Appeal, William Gordon Paul appeals against his sentence of eight years and four months' imprisonment for supplying methamphetamine, conspiring to supply methamphetamine, and supplying cannabis. The appeal challenges the High Court's decision regarding the sentence imposed on Mr. Paul. The central legal issues revolve around whether Mr. Paul was entitled to additional discounts for his remorse and rehabilitation efforts, and whether he deserved the full 25% discount for his early guilty pleas. The Court of Appeal found that Mr. Paul should have received a six-month discount for his genuine remorse and rehabilitation efforts, reducing the sentence to ten years' imprisonment. Furthermore, they ruled that Mr. Paul was entitled to the full 25% discount for his guilty pleas, resulting in a final sentence of seven years and six months' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentence, and substituted a sentence of seven years and six months' imprisonment.

Orders