For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA374/06 [2007] NZCA 305
THE QUEEN
v
RONGOMAI NGAIWI ERU TE RURE
CA375/06
THE QUEEN
v
ANTHONY DAVID WATSON
Hearing:14 March 2007
Court:William Young P, Chambers and Wilson JJ
Counsel:C L Mander for Crown
P H B Hall for Mr Te Rure J R Rapley for Mr Watson
Judgment:20 July 2007 at 4pm
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
ATHE SOLICITOR-GENERAL’S APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE SENTENCES IMPOSED ON MESSRS TE RURE AND WATSON ARE GRANTED.
B The appeals are allowed.
CThe sentences passed on Mr Te Rure are quashed and in substitution therefor the following sentences are passed:
(1)Conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine – three years six months’ imprisonment (cumulative on the existing sentence of two years three months’ imprisonment passed on 19 July 2006 in respect of Mr Te Rure’s 2004 offending, namely possession of equipment for the manufacture of methampethamine).
(2)Receiving – six months’ imprisonment (concurrent).
DThe sentences passed on Mr Watson are quashed and in substitution therefor the following sentences are passed:
(1)Conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine – three years six months’ imprisonment;
(2)Cultivation of cannabis – one year’s imprisonment (cumulative).
[1] On 15 September 2006, the appellants were each sentenced by Panckhurst J in the High Court at Christchurch to two and a half years imprisonment. Mr Te Rure was sentenced to two years on one count of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and six months (cumulative) on one charge of receiving. The resulting two and a half year sentence was to be cumulative on a sentence of two years and three months imprisonment that was imposed on 19 July 2006 for unrelated offending in 2004. Mr Watson was also sentenced to two years imprisonment on one count of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, as well as six months (cumulative) on one charge of cultivating cannabis.
[2] The Solicitor-General appeals against the two-year sentences for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, as well as the six-month sentence imposed on Mr Watson for cultivation of cannabis, on the basis that those sentences are manifestly inadequate.
Background
[3] Mr Te Rure, Mr Watson and a female co-offender were charged following a Police operation in 2005 that included surveillance of a property in Port Hills Road, Christchurch and the execution of an interception warrant and two covert search warrants. On 2 July 2005, the Police intercepted sounds consistent with manufacture of methamphetamine. Armed Offenders Squad officers went to the property in the early evening but were unable to gain entry for about 25 minutes. Panckhurst J found that, during that time, Mr Te Rure, Mr Watson and the female co-offender had been destroying glassware and otherwise disposing of evidence as fast as possible. Although no methamphetamine was found at the scene, a subsequent examination by scientists from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research found traces of chemicals and other relevant materials in the toilet…
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 Te Rure
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Te Rure [2007] NZCA 305
Case
[2007] NZCA 305
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an appeal by the Solicitor-General against the sentences imposed on Mr Rongomai Ngai Wi Eru Te Rure and Mr Anthony David Watson. The appellants had been found guilty of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and other related drug charges. The primary legal issue was whether the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were manifestly inadequate. The Court examined the appropriate discount to apply to the sentencing bands for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, as well as the appropriate sentencing band for cultivating cannabis. The Court concluded that the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and substituted new sentences. For Mr Te Rure, the Court imposed a sentence of three years six months for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, to run concurrently with a six-month sentence for receiving, which would run consecutively with his existing sentence. For Mr Watson, the Court imposed a sentence of three years six months for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and a sentence of 12 months for cultivating cannabis, both to run consecutively.