R v Mosley - [2008] NZCA 510

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA612/2007
[2008] NZCA 510
THE QUEEN
v
CHRISTOPHER JAMES FULLBECK MOSLEY
Hearing:26 November 2008

Court:Robertson, Hugh Williams and Harrison JJ
Counsel:P T R Heaslip for Appellant

S J Mount for Crown

Judgment:28 November 2008 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Hugh Williams J)
Introduction
[1]       At the conclusion of a jury trial in the Auckland High Court which ran from 12 February 2007‑22 June 2007, the appellant, Mr Mosley, and a number of co-accused were found guilty or, in some cases, pleaded guilty, on a variety of charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Arms Act 1983.
[2]       More specifically, Mr Mosley was convicted on six counts, including supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine, conspiracy to supply and supplying Ecstasy, unlawful possession of a pistol and carrying a pistol in a public place.
[3]       On 25 September 2007, the trial Judge, Allan J, sentenced the eight persons convicted to a variety of terms of imprisonment. In Mr Mosley’s case the starting point of nine years imprisonment on the methamphetamine convictions was increased to ten and a half years’ imprisonment for the Ecstasy and firearms matters.
[4]       Mr Mosley appeals to this Court on the ground the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.
Facts
[5]       The broad factual situation can conveniently be taken from the sentencing Judge’s summary:
[4] The offending was detected in the course of a long police investigation known as Operation Leningrad, conducted in the latter part of 2004. You were each arrested at the conclusion of that operation on 30 November 2004, or within a short time thereafter. During the course of that operation, the police carried out electronic surveillance, first on Mr Gray’s [one of those being sentenced] residence, and then in respect of a significant number of mobile telephones. Some of the charges relate to more recent offending, committed while some of you were on bail.
[5]       Police investigations revealed a loose network of offenders, each connected to one or more co-offenders. This was not a single, tightly controlled group. Rather, each of you took opportunities to engage in drug-related transactions as the occasions presented themselves. Some of those transactions occurred between two or more of you. Some involved persons who are not before the Court. but each of you was connected to all of the others, either directly or indirectly. While you were not tightly organised as a group, and indeed some of you knew few of the others, you all had one thing in common, namely a high degree of energy and dedication to what you were doing. It is proper to infer that, at least in most cases, your drug offending was the primary activity in your lives.

[6] After carefully reviewing the convictions against each of the co-accused and their personal circumstances, the Judge turned to Mr Mosley and summarised his personal circumstances. They included the appellant’s assertion…

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 Mosley

Details

AGLC: R v Mosley [2008] NZCA 510
Case: [2008] NZCA 510
Decision Date: 28 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Christopher James Fullbeck Mosley CA612/2007 [2008] NZCA 510 involved an appeal against a sentence imposed on Mr Mosley by the Auckland High Court. Mr Mosley, along with several co-accused, had been convicted on various charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Arms Act 1983. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and whether the starting point and the additional terms for firearms and Ecstasy offences were justified. The court found that the sentencing judge was in the best position to assess the appellant's criminality and the scale of his drug dealing, and that the starting point and additional terms were appropriate. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The appellant, Mr Mosley, was convicted on multiple charges, including supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine, conspiracy to supply and supplying Ecstasy, unlawful possession of a pistol, and carrying a pistol in a public place. The trial judge sentenced the eight persons convicted to various terms of imprisonment, with Mr Mosley receiving a starting point of nine years for the methamphetamine convictions, increased to ten and a half years for the Ecstasy and firearms matters. Mr Mosley appealed on the ground that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentencing judge's assessment of Mr Mosley's criminality, the scale of his drug dealing, and the increase in the starting point for the Ecstasy and firearms offences were appropriate. The court upheld the sentence of ten and a half years' imprisonment imposed on Mr Mosley, and his appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders