Pryor v Police - [2022] NZHC 1011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2022-463-42

[2022] NZHC 1011

BETWEEN
TARRYN CECILLY PRYOR

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 11 May 2022

Appearances:

A de Villiers for Appellant P F Lee for Respondent

Judgment:

12 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 May 2022 at 2 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

PRYOR v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 1011 [12 May 2022]

[1] Ms Pryor entered guilty pleas to several drug-related charges in the District Court. These comprised offering to supply methamphetamine (x 3), being in possession of methamphetamine and cannabis for supply and supplying methamphetamine. In addition, Ms Pryor pleaded guilty to charges of being in unlawful possession of a pistol and ammunition and failing to provide the police with the PIN number needed to gain access to her cellphone. On 2 February 2022 Judge L M Bidois sentenced Ms Pryor to an effective term of three years imprisonment on all charges.1

[2] Ms Pryor appeals against sentence on the basis that the Judge erred in principle in constructing the sentence and failed to apply adequate discounts for mitigating factors. She contends these errors led to an end sentence that was manifestly excessive.

The charges

[3] The charges related to two incidents, one of which occurred in May 2021 and the other in November 2021.

The offending in May 2021

[4] At about 1.30 am on 12 May 2021 the police stopped a vehicle in which Ms Pryor was travelling as a passenger. She provided them with false details of her identity to disguise the fact that she was in breach of the curfew conditions of her bail. The police searched a handbag in her possession and found a small set of scales, together with methamphetamine utensils. When the police requested the PIN number for her cellphone she refused to provide it.

[5] The police subsequently obtained a production order to enable them to search the data stored on Ms Pryor’s cellphone. This disclosed that she had supplied or offered to supply methamphetamine to unknown persons on numerous occasions between 25 April and 12 May 2021. The police were able to establish that between

1 New Zealand Police v Pryor [2022] NZDC 3404.

3 and 11 May 2021 Ms Pryor had offered to supply a total of 5.75 grams of methamphetamine to unknown persons.

The offending in November 2021

[6] On 11 November 2021 the police executed a search warrant at Ms Pryor’s address. She and her partner were both present when the police executed the warrant. At that time they were living in a sleepout at the address. Ms Pryor was on electronically monitored bail whilst awaiting sentencing on the charges relating to the offending in May 2021.

[7] The police found a small jewellery box beside a double bed in the sleepout. Inside the box they found six small…

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 Pryor v Police

Details

AGLC: Pryor v Police [2022] NZHC 1011
Case: [2022] NZHC 1011
Decision Date: 12 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Tarryn Cecilly Pryor, appealed against the sentence imposed on her by the District Court. The appeal was heard in the High Court, with A de Villiers representing the appellant and P F Lee representing the respondent, New Zealand Police. The court was required to decide whether the District Court Judge erred in principle in constructing the sentence and failed to apply adequate discounts for mitigating factors. The court was also required to determine whether these errors led to an end sentence that was manifestly excessive. The court found that the District Court Judge erred in principle in constructing the sentence and failed to apply adequate discounts for mitigating factors. The Judge treated the two sets of charges as separate offending, each of which required its own starting point in terms of sentence, which ignored the reality that the two sets of offences comprised Ms Pryor’s ongoing activity as a low level dealer in both methamphetamine and cannabis. The Judge also failed to apply a greater discount to reflect the mitigating factors identified in the s 27 report. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentences of three years imprisonment imposed on the charges of supplying methamphetamine were quashed. In their place, the court imposed concurrent sentences of two years seven months imprisonment. The sentences imposed on the other charges remained intact.

Orders