Police v Knox - [2013] NZHC 2828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-485-000067 [2013] NZHC 2828

BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent/Appellant

ANDKERRY BRUCE SHANE KNOX Applicant/Respondent

Hearing: 25 October 2013

Counsel: P K Feltham for Respondent/Appellant
D A Ewen for Applicant/Respondent

Judgment: 25 October 2013

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] The question which I address in this judgment is whether Mr Knox should be granted leave to appeal my decision of 22 October 2013. In that decision I allowed an appeal by the police from a sentence of home detention imposed on Mr Knox by the District Court in relation to four charges concerning supply of methamphetamine. In allowing the appeal I imposed a sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment.

[2] I can only grant leave for Mr Knox to appeal my decision if his proposed appeal involves a question of law which, by reason of its general and public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.1

Context

[3] In April 2012 Mr Knox was charged with four offences relating to:

1 Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 144(1) and (2).

(1) conspiring to supply methamphetamine; (2) supplying methamphetamine;
(3) offering to supply methamphetamine; and

(4) possessing methamphetamine for the purposes of supply.

[4] The total amount of methamphetamine involved in Mr Knox’s case was

26.45 grams.

[5] Mr Knox’s arrest followed the termination of a police operation called “Operation Marian” in which a number of people were found to be involved in the conspiring to manufacture and supply methamphetamine.

[6] Mr Knox has previous relevant convictions. On 27 February 2009 he was sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment on charges relating to the supply of methamphetamine. On 29 March 2012 he was sentenced to nine months’ supervision for possessing methamphetamine and for a related charge.

[7] By the time he was sentenced in the District Court, eight of Mr Knox’s co- offenders had pleaded guilty and been sentenced. Seven of those co-offenders received prison sentences ranging from two years and one month’s imprisonment to six years’ imprisonment. The other co-offender, described as being the most minor of the conspirators, was sentenced to 11 months’ home detention.

[8] Mr Knox was assessed in the summary of facts as being a “significant figure” in the methamphetamine supply network that was exposed through Operation Marian.

[9] On 12 March 2013 Judge Barry gave Mr Knox a sentence indication in which he said that if Mr Knox pleaded guilty he would be likely to be sentenced to two years and ten months’ imprisonment. Mr Knox declined the sentence indication but nevertheless pleaded guilty to the four charges on 28 March 2013.

[10] Mr Knox was sentenced by Judge Broadmore on 31 July 2013. Judge Broadmore adopted Judge Barry’s starting point of two years ten months’ imprisonment but gave Mr Knox further discounts to reflect:

(1) the further time spent by Mr Knox on electronically monitored (EM)

bail;

(2)the impact of sending Mr…

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 Police v Knox

Details

AGLC: Police v Knox [2013] NZHC 2828
Case: [2013] NZHC 2828
Decision Date: 25 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Police v Knox concerns the defendant's appeal against the sentence imposed by the High Court. The defendant, Kerry Bruce Shane Knox, was convicted of four drug-related charges and initially sentenced to home detention and community work by the District Court. The New Zealand Police appealed the sentence, arguing that it was inadequate. The High Court allowed the appeal and imposed a sentence of imprisonment instead. Knox subsequently sought leave to appeal the High Court's decision.

The primary legal issues in this case revolve around the appropriate methodology for assessing the adequacy of a sentence and whether certain factors should have been considered in determining the sentence's length. Knox's appeal grounds focus on the starting point for sentencing, the application of discounts for mitigating factors, adjustments to the prison term for cumulative community-based sentences, and the consideration of pre-sentence detention time.

The High Court assessed the proposed grounds for appeal and concluded that none of them raised questions of law that were of sufficient public or general importance to warrant an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court found that the first three grounds related to the methodology used to determine the sentence, which would not realistically alter the imposed sentence of imprisonment. The fourth ground, concerning pre-sentence detention, was deemed incompatible with the statutory requirement to disregard such detention when determining the length of a sentence. Thus, the Court exercised its residual discretion not to grant leave for the appeal, finding that the proposed grounds did not justify further consideration by the Court of Appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court denied Knox's application for leave to appeal its decision, finding that the proposed grounds of appeal did not involve questions of law of sufficient public or general importance to warrant an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court's reasoning focused on the potential impact of the proposed grounds on the overall sentence and whether they aligned with statutory requirements and established legal principles.

Orders