R v Taylor - [2007] NZCA 258

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA397/06 [2007] NZCA 258

THE QUEEN

v

ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR

Hearing: 18 June 2007
Court: Hammond, Williams and Panckhurst JJ Counsel: C J Tennet for Appellant
C L Mander for Crown

Judgment: 26 June 2007 at 4 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

B The appeal against the sentence of eight years is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Panckhurst J)

R V TAYLOR CA CA397/06 26 June 2007

The search of a storage unit at Paraparaumu

[1] On 16 December 2004 the police searched a storage unit at Paraparaumu. In October of that year the unit had been let to the appellant. The search revealed cannabis oil, cannabis plant, morphine sulphate tablets, precursor substances (hydrochloric acid, pseudoephedrine, acetone and iodine rock), a .22 calibre pen gun, a Browning .270 Winchester calibre rifle, a Benelli semi-automatic shotgun, a pistol (being a cut-down semi-automatic Ruger .22 rifle), assorted ammunition, home- made pipe bombs, a stolen Hewlett Packard laptop computer and stolen Samsung and Nokia cellphones.

[2] Subsequently, the appellant was charged with possession of the various controlled drugs and precursor substances, possession of the various firearms and ammunition contrary to the Arms Act 1983 and receiving the computer and the cellphones. In total, the indictment contained 15 counts.

[3] Following a trial before Miller J and a jury in July 2006, Mr Taylor was convicted on all counts. Mr Taylor defended himself. He appeals against both conviction, and the resulting sentence of eight years imprisonment imposed in September 2006.

[4] The grounds of the conviction appeal can be grouped under three headings. These are a challenge to the admissibility of the evidence of the search, two complaints arising in relation to the conduct of the trial and four suggested misdirections contained in the Judge’s summing-up to the jury.

[5] The sentence appeal is likewise based on a number of grounds; that starting- points were adopted which were too high, that the imposition of cumulative sentences was inappropriate and that the totality principle was not given adequate recognition. In the result, it is said, the effective sentence arrived at was clearly excessive.

[6] The appellant married his partner on 11 December 2004. Three days later Mrs Taylor made a complaint to the police in relation to alleged domestic violence she had suffered at the hands of the appellant. She also mentioned that her husband had a storage unit, which may be of interest to the police because it contained drugs and guns.

[7] On 16 December Mrs Taylor guided a police officer to the storage unit. Forced entry was gained in purported reliance on the powers to conduct a warrantless search under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Arms Act 1983. In addition the detective involved in the search had Mrs Taylor sign a written form of consent authorising entry into the storage unit.

[8] Upon initial entry into the unit the police became concerned…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2007] NZCA 258
Case: [2007] NZCA 258
Decision Date: 26 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Arthur William Taylor appeals against his conviction and the sentence imposed by Miller J. Taylor was convicted on 15 counts relating to the unlawful possession of drugs and precursor substances, firearms and ammunition, and stolen property. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment. The appeal against conviction focuses on the admissibility of evidence, the conduct of the trial and directions given to the jury during the summing up. The appeal against sentence challenges the starting points adopted, the imposition of cumulative sentences and the application of the totality principle. The Court found that the search evidence was properly admitted, and that the trial was conducted fairly with no significant curtailment of cross-examination. The directions given to the jury were adequate. The sentence imposed was not excessive, taking into account the nature of the offending and Taylor’s criminal history. The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.

Orders