Pfeiffer v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 2409

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-463-000099

[2021] NZHC 2409

BETWEEN
KARL DAVID PFEIFFER

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 14 September 2021 (by VMR)

Appearances:

W T Nabney for Appellant S J Bird for Crown

Judgment:

14 September 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Sentence appeal

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Rotorua Counsel: W T Nabney, Tauranga

PFEIFFER v R [2021] NZHC 2409 [14 September 2021]

[1] Karl Pfeiffer pleaded guilty to charges of possession of cannabis, cultivating cannabis, possession of methamphetamine, possession of a pipe for smoking methamphetamine, possession of a sawn-off shotgun, possession of ammunition (two shotgun cartridges) and possession of a knife in a public place.

[2] On 4 August 2021 Judge D J McDonald sentenced Mr Pfeiffer to 20 months’ imprisonment.1 Mr Pfeiffer appeals on the basis that the starting point adopted by the Judge in respect of the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition was excessive and a sentence of home detention, being the least restrictive outcome, should have been imposed rather than the sentence of imprisonment.

[3] The background to Mr Pfeiffer’s offending coming to the attention of the Police is somewhat unusual.

[4] In the early morning just before 7.00 am on 27 January 2021 he presented at the Tokoroa Police Station and said that about four hours earlier an intruder armed with a 12 gauge shotgun had entered his house and then fallen asleep on his couch.

[5] The Police went to Mr Pfeiffer’s home shortly after 7.00 that morning. There was a person on his couch. No firearm was found to be present and the person on the couch denied bringing one. Mr Pfeiffer said the person asleep on the couch had arrived at about between 2.00 and 3.00 in the morning to remind him he owed money for fixing a garage door, a child’s motorbike and a fuel pump. Mr Pfeiffer said he had given the firearm to a friend of a friend.

[6] In the course of looking for the firearm the Police found two point bags containing 0.39 g of methamphetamine on a coffee table, a tent for growing cannabis in a bedroom, 60 cannabis seedlings in various trays and more cannabis in another bedroom. Mr Pfeiffer’s garage contained a growing room complete with heat lamps and fans. The cannabis weighed 1.91 kgs.

[7]Mr Pfeiffer told the Police the cannabis was for his own use.

1 Police v Pfeiffer [2021] NZDC 15815.

[8] About six weeks later at 1.15 am on 6 March 2021 Mr Pfeiffer was found in a car parked in a car park in Rotorua. In a backpack in the footwell of the car were two 12 gauge shotgun cartridges. Mr Pfeiffer also had 0.15 g of methamphetamine on him and a glass pipe for methamphetamine use. Mr Pfeiffer also had a knife strapped to his ankle. A search of the boot located a sawn-off shotgun. Mr Pfeiffer’s explanation at the…

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 Pfeiffer v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Pfeiffer v The Queen [2021] NZHC 2409
Case: [2021] NZHC 2409
Decision Date: 14 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Karl David Pfeiffer appealed against the sentence imposed by Judge D J McDonald, who had sentenced him to 20 months' imprisonment for multiple drug-related and firearm offences. The appeal centred on the contention that the starting point for the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition was excessive and that a sentence of home detention should have been imposed instead. Pfeiffer's appeal hinged on the contention that the starting point adopted by the Judge for the firearm charge was too high, and that the possession of the shotgun and ammunition did not warrant such a lengthy starting point. Pfeiffer's counsel argued that the shotgun was not readily accessible and was unloaded, and that the starting point should have been less than 18 months' imprisonment. The court acknowledged that previous cases had upheld starting points of between 20 and 30 months for possession of sawn-off shotguns and ammunition, and that the possession of unlawful weapons, particularly sawn-off shotguns, was a matter of concern to the community. The court held that the starting point for the firearm possession charge was within range, and that the Judge was entitled to impose a term of imprisonment to achieve the necessary deterrence and denunciation. The court also found that the Judge was entitled to reject Pfeiffer's explanation for possession of the firearm and that a discount of 20 per cent for the guilty plea was appropriate. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the sentence imposed by Judge D J McDonald be upheld.

Orders