R v Carter CA155/05

Craig Joseph Carter appeals against both his conviction and sentence. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. The appeal against sentence is also dismissed. The appellant and Mr Townsend were found guilty of attempting to manufacture a Class A controlled drug, possession of equipment and possession of precursor substances. The appellant was acquitted on other charges. Two other accused, Mr Pirimona and Mr Morehu, were acquitted on all charges they faced. The appellant was sentenced to four years imprisonment on the attempted manufacturing charge. Concurrent sentences of two years imprisonment were imposed on the possession of equipment and precursor substances charges. The appeal against conviction is advanced on the following grounds: (a) the verdicts of the jury were unreasonable or contrary to the weight of evidence; (b) the trial Judge ought not to have admitted evidence relating to the finding of ammunition on the appellant; (c) expert evidence of fingerprint analysis ought not to have been admitted because the witness could give no reasoned basis for his opinion; and (d) the trial Judge gave inadequate directions to the jury in respect of the weight that could be attached to evidence relating to: (i) the finding of ammunition; (ii) fingerprint evidence against the appellant; (iii) the connection (if any) between the appellant and a white Honda vehicle; and (iv) the existence of a warrant for the appellant’s arrest at the time of the offending. The appeal against sentence is based on manifest excess. The sentence appeal focused on the starting point adopted by the sentencing Judge. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. The circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's location in close proximity to the Holborn Drive address at 5am, his attempts to flee from the Police when seen, the presence of a white Honda motor vehicle registered in the name of his wife outside the Holborn Drive address, ammunition and a weapon found in his possession consistent with both ammunition found at the Holborn Drive address and ammunition located close to the address, the presence of mud and grass staining on his clothing and shoes, and fingerprint evidence linking the appellant to the recipe for methamphetamine found at 9 Holborn Drive, provided an adequate foundation for the jury to infer guilt. The evidence relating to the ammunition found on the appellant was admissible. There was a sufficient link between what went on at the premises and the appellant's arrest and that there were clear grounds for his arrest in relation to methamphetamine. The fingerprint evidence was admissible. The evidence given by the expert was admissible and that it was unnecessary for the Judge to go further in directing the jury than to give the standard direction dealing with expert testimony. The appeal against sentence is dismissed. The starting point chosen by the Judge was appropriate. The end sentence of four years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.