Legal Research
Cases
R v Saxton

R v Saxton

Case [2009] NZCA 498 22 October 2009

Criminal Liability

Admissibility of Evidence

Limitation Periods

Injunction

Criminal Law

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

CA143/2008
CA144/2008 [2009] NZCA 498

THE QUEEN

v

DAVID ANTHONY SAXTON MORGAN DAVID SAXTON

Hearing: 28 and 29 July 2009
Court: William Young P, Chambers and Robertson JJ Counsel: G J X McCoy and M Starling for Appellants
R P Bates, M J Grills and F R J Sinclair for Crown

Judgment: 22 October 2009 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeals against conviction are dismissed.

BDavid Saxton’s appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of two years and nine months’ imprisonment imposed on him is quashed and he is now sentenced to six months’ home detention. He is to go to
19 Garden Terrace, Picton, at 10am on Friday 30 October 2009 and await the arrival of a probation officer and the monitoring company. Thereafter he is to be subject to six months’ home detention at that address and is to be subject to the standard home detention conditions in s 80C(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002.

C Morgan Saxton’s appeal against sentence is dismissed.

R V SAXTON And Anor CA CA143/2008 [22 October 2009]

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Robertson J)

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction [1] The heart of the case [7] Did the Crown prove beyond reasonable doubt that the

appellants were not entitled to take pounamu? [15]

Who owned the pounamu? [15] The appellants’ position [34] A customary right to gather? [45]

An authorisation from Te Runanga o Makaawhio? [46]
The Saxtons had no right to take the pounamu [55]

Did the Crown prove beyond reasonable doubt that the

Saxtons acted dishonestly? [56]

The approach of the Judge [56] Admissibility of evidence [77] Result on conviction appeal [95] Appeal against sentence [96] Result on sentence appeals [110]

Introduction

[1] The Cascade Plateau in South Westland is about as remote as any part of

New Zealand. On it are substantial quantities of pounamu – a stone of great value.

[2] The Crown presented an indictment against the appellants, David Saxton and his son Morgan, containing three counts. First, that David Saxton stole pounamu from the Plateau between 1 April 1991 and 29 October 1997; second, that together with his son Morgan, David stole more pounamu between 29 October 1997 and
30 September 2003; and third, that both David and Morgan stole pounamu, between

1 October 2003 and 12 October 2004.

[3] Following a hearing in the District Court at Christchurch in May and June

2007 before Judge MacAskill sitting alone, both were convicted of the second of the three charges (all of which had been laid indictably), namely:

That on dates unknown but between 29 October 1997 and 30 September
2003 at South Westland, did steal Pounamu (as defined in s 2 of the Ngai
Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997) valued in excess of $300,000, the property of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (Representative Count).

[4] On 15 February 2008, David Saxton…

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 Saxton

Details

AGLC: R v Saxton [2009] NZCA 498
Case: [2009] NZCA 498
Decision Date: 22 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Saxton is a criminal appeal concerning the theft of pounamu, a valuable stone, from the Cascade Plateau in South Westland, New Zealand. David Saxton and his son Morgan Saxton were convicted in the District Court of stealing pounamu valued at over $300,000 from the property of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (TRONT) between 29 October 1997 and 30 September 2003. The Saxtons appealed against their convictions and sentences, with Morgan Saxton's appeal being continued by his personal representative following his death.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Saxtons were not entitled to take the pounamu and whether they acted dishonestly in doing so. The Court concluded that the Crown had indeed proven these points. The Court found that the pounamu on the Cascade Plateau was vested in the Crown as part of the Arahura Purchase of 1860 and later transferred to TRONT under the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997. The Saxtons had no legal authority or customary rights to take the pounamu. Furthermore, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that the Saxtons did not honestly believe they had any right to take the pounamu, as evidenced by their covert activities and lack of any assertion of such a belief.

Regarding the sentence appeal, the Court found that the original sentences of imprisonment were manifestly excessive and inappropriate given the circumstances. The Court accepted the Crown's submission that a community-based sentence was now appropriate, and imposed a sentence of six months' home detention for David Saxton, taking into account his age, first-time offender status, and significant community contributions. Morgan Saxton's appeal against sentence was dismissed as the appeal had been abandoned.

The Court's decision dismissed the appeals against conviction but allowed the appeal against David Saxton's sentence, reducing it to six months' home detention. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal frameworks governing natural resources and the need for appropriate sentencing that considers the unique circumstances of each case.

Orders