R v Hines - [2017] NZHC 437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-004-007734 [2017] NZHC 437

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM HINES

TE HERE MAIHI MAAKA TRAVIS JAMES SADLER
THOMAS GORDON EDWARDSON FALCO BROUQ CELLAH MAAKA JOHN GERARD VIJN
PETER FRANCIS ATKINSON ALLISTER DAVID VOUSDEN SUNNY MARIE LEE HOHEPA

Hearing: 7 February - 10 March 2017

Counsel:

B R Northwood and F M T Culliney for Crown
A J Holland and K H Maxwell for defendant Hines
A J Maxwell-Scott and S Lack for defendant T Maaka
R M Mansfield and Q Duff for defendant Sadler
M E Goodwin and R J McCausland for defendant Edwardson
S N B Wimsett and C Taylor for defendant F Maaka
D G Young and A S Bloem for defendant Vijn
M P Hislop and A Shendi for defendant Atkinson
D M M Dickinson and A C Cresswell for defendant Vousden
A M M Ives for defendant Hohepa

Judgment:

14 March 2017

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J (re: s 147 applications)

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 4.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

R v HINES & ORS [2017] NZHC 437 [14 March 2017]

Table of Contents

Para No

Background [1] Charges 1–5, and 13: money laundering [4] An amendment to charge 4 [15] Charges 6, 7 and 8 [17] Charges 17–24 [42] Charges 9 and 10 [56] Charge 11 [64] Charge 14 [69] Charge 12 [73] Charges 15 and 16 [79] Charge 25 [86] Charge 28 [93] Amendment to charge 28 [95] Addendum [96]

Background

[1] The defendants face a total of 28 charges contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act

1975, Arms Act 1983 and Crimes Act 1961. The charges’ unifying theme is methamphetamine; more particularly, its manufacture and distribution. Much of the offending is alleged to have been committed under the auspices of the East Chapter of the Head Hunters gang. Mr Hines is the primary defendant. He is alleged to been one of the East Chapter’s two leaders at the relevant time—and the most serious offences’ architect. There is (contested) evidence Mr Hines was an East Chapter leader between 2013 and 2015, and other evidence which implies his orders were
unquestionably followed.1

[2] It is common ground Mr Sadler, Mr Te Here Maaka and Mr Falco Maaka were patched members of the gang, and Mr Edwardson a prospect. Mr Edwardson is Mr Sadler’s and Ms Hohepa’s father. Mr Vousden, Mr Atkinson and Mr Vijn are
better introduced through circumstance.

1 For example, on 10 April 2015 Mr Edwardson was driving north to Whangarei. With apparent reference to Mr Hines, Mr Sadler told Mr Edwardson “the bro” wanted to see Mr Edwardson “ASAP”. Mr Edwardson called Mr Hines later that morning to say he was “heading back down”. Mr Hines told Mr Edwardson to “Come here now” as Mr Edwardson had “fucked up”. Mr Edwardson replied, “Oh hell. Oh okay. Yep”.

[3] At the conclusion of the Crown case, all defendants sought discharges…

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 R v Hines

Details

AGLC: R v Hines [2017] NZHC 437
Case: [2017] NZHC 437
Decision Date: 14 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants in the case, R v Hines, are facing a total of 28 charges related to methamphetamine manufacturing, distribution, and possession, as well as money laundering. The case revolves around the alleged involvement of the defendants in the activities of the East Chapter of the Head Hunters gang. The defendants applied for discharges pursuant to s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, seeking the dismissal of at least some of their respective charges. The court had to decide whether a properly directed jury could reasonably find guilt established to the criminal standard.

The court ruled that the discharge applications in relation to charges 1, 2, 3 and 5 (money laundering) were allowed, as there was insufficient evidence that the cars were derived from criminal offending. However, the discharge applications in relation to charges 4 and 13 (money laundering) were dismissed, as there was sufficient evidence to infer that the Corvette and the property were the proceeds of serious offending or more specifically, methamphetamine-derived offending. The court also dismissed the discharge applications in relation to charges 6, 7, 8, 17–24, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 25, and 28.

In summary, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the charges of money laundering, methamphetamine manufacturing, distribution, possession, and participation in an organised criminal group for some of the defendants. However, there were insufficient grounds to discharge certain defendants from specific charges. The final verdicts were in line with the court's assessment of the evidence and indicated a careful and conscientious jury.

Orders