Legal Research
Cases
R v Rolston

R v Rolston

Case [2008] NZCA 431 22 October 2008

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Jurisdiction

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA375/07
CA405/07
CA411/07
[2008] NZCA 431
THE QUEEN
v
GREGORY PHILIP ROLSTON
SARA EMMA LYNCH
KENNY LESLIE MCMILLAN
Hearing:19 August 2008

Court:William Young P, Hammond and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:P S Coles for Rolston

R J Stevens for Lynch
D L Stevens QC for McMillan
S K Barr for Crown

Judgment:22 October 2008 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AWe allow each appellant’s appeal against conviction in part. The convictions of all appellants on count 15 are quashed and we direct that acquittals be entered on that count.

B In all other respects the appeals against conviction are dismissed.
CThe appeals against sentence are dismissed and the sentences of all appellants remain unchanged.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by O’Regan J)
Table of Contents
Para No

Introduction  [1]
Convictions  [2]
Summary of the offending  [3]
Sentencing  [4]
Grounds of appeal  [5]
Issues  [14]
Were the verdicts on the methamphetamine charges
unreasonable?  [16]
Should the statements of Mrs Vining have been edited?  [39]
Should the “crack dealer” text message have been
excluded?  [67]
Should the appellants’ trial have been severed from that
of Mrs Vining?  [72]
Did the Judge misdirect the jury on the ingredients of the
offence of money laundering?  [77]
Was the verdict on count 15 unreasonable?  [111]
Was the verdict on count 2 unreasonable?  [112]
Was the verdict on count 4 unreasonable?  [117]
Was the verdict on count 10 unreasonable?  [122]
Was the verdict on count 11 unreasonable?  [127]
Was the verdict on count 13 unreasonable?  [133]
Sentence appeals  [136]
Result  [140]
Introduction
[1]       The appellants appeal against conviction and sentence in relation to a number of counts on which they were convicted after a High Court jury trial. The Crown case was that the appellants were engaged in a conspiracy to supply methamphetamine but each appellant also faced charges in relation to activities in which they engaged independently of the conspiracy.
Convictions
[2]       The charges on which the appellants and their co-accused Vanessa Vining were convicted are set out in convenient form in the sentencing notes of the trial Judge, Miller J, as follows:

Accused Convicted Offence Section

McMillan, Lynch, Rolston Count 1: Conspiracy to supply a Class A drug (meth) ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2A)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

Lynch Count 2: Supplying a Class A drug (meth) ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

McMillan Count 3: Money laundering [Not appealed] s 12B(2) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

Lynch Count 4: Supplying a Class B drug (ecstasy) ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(b) Misuse of Drugs Act

McMillan Count 5: Supplying a Class A drug (meth) ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

Lynch Count 6: Possessing a Class A drug (MDA) ss 7(1)(a) and 7(2)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

McMillan Count 7: Supplying a Class A drug (meth) ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

McMillan, Lynch Count 8: Supplying a Class A…

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 Rolston

Details

AGLC: R v Rolston [2008] NZCA 431
Case: [2008] NZCA 431
Decision Date: 22 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants in this case were convicted of a number of drug related offences, including conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, money laundering, and possession and supply of other drugs. Each appellant had appealed against their convictions and sentences. The appeal against conviction related to the methamphetamine conspiracy charges. The main issues were whether the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable, whether certain statements and text messages should have been excluded from evidence, and whether the appellants’ trials should have been severed from the trial of another person. The court found that the jury’s verdicts on the methamphetamine conspiracy charges were reasonable, that there was no need to exclude the evidence, and that there was no need to sever the trials. The verdicts on all other counts were found to be reasonable. The appeals against sentence were dismissed. The convictions on the money laundering charge were quashed and acquittals were entered on that count.

Orders