Quinlan v R - [2013] NZCA 634

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA270/2013
[2013] NZCA 634

BETWEEN	MICHAEL MAURICE QUINLAN Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA271/2013
AND BETWEEN	PETER JOHN BENNETT Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA287/2013
AND BETWEEN	STONEWARE 91 LIMITED Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA288/2013
AND BETWEEN	HYDROPONIC WHOLESALERS LIMITED Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	13 November 2013
Court:	Wild, Simon France and Asher JJ
Counsel:	P J Davison QC and H D L Steele for Appellants Quinlan, Stoneware 91 Ltd and Hydroponic Wholesalers Ltd G J Foley for Appellant Bennett K A L Bicknell for Respondent
Judgment:	10 December 2013 at 4 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeals against sentence are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Simon France J)

Introduction

Following a trial spread over eight weeks in the District Court at Auckland the appellants were convicted of various drug offences. Each now appeals the sentences imposed by Judge Andrée Wiltens:[1]
(a)Mr Quinlan – four years and three months’ imprisonment;
(b)Mr Bennett – three years and nine months’ imprisonment;
(c)Stoneware 91 Ltd and Hydroponic Wholesalers Ltd – $125,000 fine each.

Background

[1]R v Quinlan DC Auckland CRI 2010‑004‑020624, 30 April 2013.

Mr Quinlan was the man behind a chain of stores (Switched On Gardener) that sold, amongst other things, hydroponic growing equipment. Mr Bennett was the general manager of the chain. Stoneware 91 Ltd is the corporate entity that formally owns the 16 stores nationwide, and Hydroponic Wholesalers Ltd is a company owned by Mr Quinlan that sold goods to the Switched On Gardener chain.
The essential allegation was that the stores were knowingly supplying equipment for the cultivation of cannabis. Indeed, it was alleged that the store equipment was stocked for that purpose, and that the principals were part of an organised criminal enterprise.
Some charges were proven; others failed. In the end, all the appellants were convicted of 16 counts of supplying equipment for the cultivation of cannabis knowing at the time of sale that it was to be used for that purpose. The 16 convictions represent one representative count for each of the chain’s 16 stores nationwide. All but Mr Quinlan were convicted of possession of equipment intending that it be used for cannabis cultivation (count three), and all were acquitted of the organised criminal group charge.
Although the indictment alleged offending between June 2008 and April 2010, it is common ground on the appeal that the commencement period for the offending was November 2008. This means the offending spanned about 18 months.
The convictions resulted from a nationwide operation by the police. Undercover officers were tasked to visit each store on several occasions, seeking to buy equipment having first made plain the illegal purpose for which the equipment was to be used. The success rate for purchasing in these circumstances was very high. This left little doubt that, nationwide, the salespeople at least were unconcerned about, and indeed in many instances encouraging of and informative about, the use to which…

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 Quinlan v R

Details

AGLC: Quinlan v R [2013] NZCA 634
Case: [2013] NZCA 634
Decision Date: 10 December 2013 at 4 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal was brought by several appellants who had been convicted of various drug offences. The appellants were Michael Maurice Quinlan, Peter John Bennett, Stoneware 91 Limited and Hydroponic Wholesalers Limited. They appealed against the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge. The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed were appropriate in all the circumstances, and whether the sentencing judge had erred in assessing culpability, the scale of the offending or the discount applied. The court also needed to consider whether the sentences were manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentences were appropriate and dismissed the appeals. The court found that the appellants' culpability was correctly assessed and that the sentences reflected the serious nature of the offending. The court also found that the discount applied was appropriate and that the fines imposed on the corporate appellants were not manifestly excessive.

Orders