Legal Research
Cases
R v Martin

R v Martin

Case [2007] NZCA 386 31 August 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA161/06
[2007] NZCA 386
THE QUEEN
v
LINDA MARTIN
Hearing:23 July 2007

Court:Chambers, Randerson and Keane JJ
Counsel:G J King for Appellant

K Raftery for Crown

Judgment:31 August 2007 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Chambers J)
[1]       Linda Martin arrived at Auckland Airport with more than 3 kilograms of cocaine, a class A controlled drug, in her luggage. The cocaine was at 80% purity, with an estimated street value of over $4 million.
[2]       Following trial by jury, Ms Martin was convicted of importing the drugs. She was later sentenced to eight years and five months’ imprisonment. She now appeals against her conviction and sentence.
Issues on the appeal
[3]       Mr King, for Ms Martin, raised four issues on the appeal against conviction.
[4]       The first issue is whether Priestley J’s summing up was erroneous in how it dealt with the accused's knowledge of whether the drugs were in her luggage.
[5]       The second is whether the summing up was erroneous in the directions it gave as to inferences.
[6]       The third issue is whether the summing up was defective in not having a so‑called tripartite direction.
[7]       The final issue is whether the verdict was unreasonable.
[8]       There is only one issue on the sentence appeal: did the judge give a sufficient discount for mitigating factors?
Was the summing up erroneous in how it dealt with knowledge?
[9]       The sole issue at trial was whether Ms Martin knew the cocaine was in her luggage. Mr King had two complaints as to how the judge dealt with knowledge. First, he submitted that the judge told the jury that “wilful blindness” would suffice. Mr King suggested that was wrong: Ms Martin could be found guilty only if she actually knew the drugs were there. Mr King also developed a fallback argument. It was this: even if wilful blindness can suffice, it was not adequately explained.
[10]     We begin our response by stating the law. Mr King is wrong in suggesting wilful blindness will not suffice. In a case such as this, it will suffice if the Crown can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused (importer) had her suspicions aroused as to what she was carrying, but deliberately refrained from making further inquiries or confirming her suspicion because she wanted to remain in ignorance. If that is proved, the law presumes knowledge on the part of the accused. The fault lies in the deliberate failure to inquire when the accused knows there is reason for inquiry.
[11]     We base that proposition on what the Supreme Court of Canada said in Sansregret v The Queen [1985] 1 SCR 570 at 584-586. See also R v Barbeau (1996) 110 CCC (3d) 69 at 92-95 (QCA), He Kaw Teh v R (1985) 60 ALR 449 at 457-458 (HCA), and R v Kural [1986] VR 673 at 676-678 (FC). There is a very useful discussion…

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 Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Martin [2007] NZCA 386
Case: [2007] NZCA 386
Decision Date: 31 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Linda Martin was arrested at Auckland Airport in possession of over 3 kilograms of cocaine, valued at over $4 million. Following her trial by jury, she was found guilty of importing the drugs and subsequently sentenced to eight years and five months' imprisonment. Martin appeals against her conviction and sentence. The primary issue on appeal is whether Martin had knowledge of the cocaine being in her luggage. Additionally, Martin argues that the summing up by the judge was erroneous in its directions regarding inferences, and that the judge failed to provide a tripartite direction. Lastly, Martin claims that the verdict was unreasonable. Concerning the sentence, Martin argues that the judge did not provide a sufficient discount for mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal found that while the judge did not fully explain the concept of "wilful blindness," the judge ultimately instructed the jury to find Martin guilty only if they were certain she actually knew the drugs were in her luggage. The Court of Appeal rejected Martin's arguments regarding the summing up's direction on inferences and the absence of a tripartite direction. Furthermore, the Court found that the verdict was reasonable given the strength of the Crown's case. Lastly, the Court of Appeal concluded that the sentence imposed by the judge was appropriate, and that the discount provided for mitigating factors was sufficient.

The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

Orders