R v Holt

Case [2008] NZCA 388 25 September 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA157/2008
[2008] NZCA 388
THE QUEEN
v
MELANIE GINA HOLT
Hearing:20 August 2008

Court:Robertson, Cooper and Winkelmann JJ
Counsel:M J Robb for Appellant

M A Woolford for Crown

Judgment:25 September 2008 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ATHE APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION IS ALLOWED ON THE COUNTS ON WHICH MS HOLT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCHARGED UNDER S 347 OF THE CRIMES ACT 1961 ON 12 FEBRUARY 2007, NAMELY:
(a)conspiring to defeat the course of justice contrary to s 116 of the Crimes Act 1961;
(b)possession of the class B controlled drug morphine for the purpose of supply contrary to s 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975;
(c)possession of a precursor substance for the purpose of manufacturing the class A controlled drug heroin contrary to s 12A(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975;
(d)supply of the class A controlled drug methamphetamine contrary to s 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975; and
(e) possession of a methamphetamine pipe contrary to s 13(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

B The sentence of five years’ imprisonment for possession of methamphetamine for supply is quashed and substituted with a sentence of four years’ imprisonment.
CThe three year sentence imposed for possession of heroin for supply and the one year sentence for charges under the Arms Act are confirmed.
DAll sentences are to be served concurrently. The effective sentence is four years’ imprisonment.

____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Robertson J)
The issue
[1]       This appeal against conviction and sentence is limited to a narrow compass, namely the effect of a s 347 discharge granted in the High Court and whether such an order is reviewable by the High Court, or is final and cannot be reviewed. It is common ground that if the conviction appeal is allowed there will have to be an adjustment to the effective sentence imposed.
Litigation history
[2]       Ms Holt was committed for trial on one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice, eight charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and two charges under the Arms Act 1983. At the time, she was represented by Mr Hewson.
[3]       She was one of a substantial number of people charged with interrelated offences. Those charged were formally arraigned and the jury empanelled in the High Court at Hamilton on 5 February 2007. The case was adjourned for a week to allow the jury to prepare for what was anticipated to be a trial of up to 12 weeks.
[4]       During those seven days, a number of the accused entered guilty pleas. On 12 February 2007 Ms Holt sought leave to withdraw her pleas of not guilty and to enter pleas of guilty to two of the charges she faced (possession of heroin and possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of supply).
[5]       Ms Holt was rearraigned and she entered the two pleas…

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 Holt

Details

AGLC: R v Holt [2008] NZCA 388
Case: [2008] NZCA 388
Decision Date: 25 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Holt was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Melanie Gina Holt appealed against her convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court at Hamilton. The appeal against conviction was limited to the effect of a s 347 discharge granted by the High Court and whether such an order is reviewable. The appeal against sentence argued that the sentence was unsustainable because of errors made by two different Judges. The Court of Appeal found that the appeal against conviction was allowable on the counts on which Ms Holt had previously been discharged. The sentence of five years' imprisonment for possession of methamphetamine for supply was quashed and substituted with a sentence of four years' imprisonment. The sentences imposed for possession of heroin for supply and the one year sentence for charges under the Arms Act were confirmed. All sentences are to be served concurrently, so the effective sentence is four years' imprisonment.

Orders