R v Weston - [2014] NZHC 2351

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2013-041-2516 CRI-2013-054-3479

CRI-2013-054-3481 [2014] NZHC 2351

THE QUEEN

v

TERRY ANTHONY WESTON KIMBERLEY MEIHANA ZANE MARSH

JEREMIAH SUA

Hearing: 24 September 2014

Counsel:

D R Davies and E M Fitzherbert for Crown E R Fairbrother QC for Weston

A Shaw for Marsh
S N Hewson for Sua

Judgment:

25 September 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

(Pre-trial applications)

[1] On 24 September 2014, I heard a number of pre-trial applications in relation to these matters.

R v WESTON [2014] NZHC 2351 [25 September 2014]

Weston

[2] Mr Weston faces two charges of supplying methamphetamine and one of possession of methamphetamine for supply. On his behalf, Mr Fairbrother QC argued a number of matters.

[3] First, Mr Weston challenged the evidence obtained from a search of the motor vehicle in which he was travelling at the time he was arrested. The ground of the challenge was that both his arrest and the search were made without warrants, and the arrest was unlawful because of the absence of good cause to suspect on the part of the arresting officer. It was argued that if the arrest was unlawful, then any evidence gathered in the course of a search conducted as a consequence of the arrest was not admissible.

[4] Secondly, Mr Weston opposed a Crown application under s 344A of the Crimes Act 1961, which sought a ruling that certain evidence in relation to prior methamphetamine dealing, and convictions in respect of that conduct, was admissible as propensity evidence.

[5] Thirdly, the Crown applied for joinder of the charges against Mr Weston with the charges against all other defendants who are going to trial as a result of arrests made in the course of Operation Cargo. Mr Weston made a complementary application for severance of the charges against him and, depending on the outcome of that application, for a change of venue to Napier.

[6]Finally, Mr Weston applied for bail.

Challenge to the lawfulness of Mr Weston’s arrest/admissibility of evidence obtained in the subsequent search

[7] Mr Weston was arrested on the night of 17 December 2013 in suburban Napier by Constable Chantrey, who had limited prior involvement in the investigation leading to Mr Weston’s arrest. Constable Chantrey’s immediate comment to Mr Weston when he was arrested was to the effect that he was being arrested for “drug related matters”. Shortly thereafter, once Mr Weston had got out of the car in which he was a passenger,

and had been handcuffed and placed in the rear of the Police car attending the scene, Constable Chantrey advised Mr Weston that he was being arrested for supplying methamphetamine.

[8] In response to the challenge to the lawfulness of the arrest, the Crown called evidence…

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 Weston

Details

AGLC: R v Weston [2014] NZHC 2351
Case: [2014] NZHC 2351
Decision Date: 25 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Weston was heard before Justice Dobson in the High Court of New Zealand, Palmerston North Registry. Terry Anthony Weston, along with other defendants, faces multiple charges related to methamphetamine dealing. Weston's legal representative, Mr. Fairbrother QC, raised several pre-trial applications, including challenging the admissibility of evidence obtained from a search of Weston's vehicle at the time of his arrest, opposing the Crown's application to admit propensity evidence of prior methamphetamine dealing, and seeking a severance of charges and a change of venue. Additionally, an application for bail was made on Weston's behalf.

The court addressed the challenge to the admissibility of evidence obtained from the search of Weston's vehicle. The arrest and search were conducted without a warrant, and the legality of the arrest was questioned on the grounds that the arresting officer did not have good cause to suspect Weston of committing any offence punishable by imprisonment. The court found that the arresting officer was entitled to rely on the knowledge held by other police officers involved in the investigation, and the arrest was deemed lawful. Consequently, the evidence obtained from the search of the vehicle was deemed admissible.

The court also considered the Crown's application to admit propensity evidence of prior methamphetamine dealing by Weston. The court found that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any potential prejudicial effect, and granted the Crown's application to admit the propensity evidence.

Furthermore, the court assessed the joinder and severance of charges, as well as the change of venue application. The court found that it was in the interests of justice to hear the charges against Weston and the other defendants together, and denied the application for severance and change of venue.

Finally, the court addressed the application for bail. The court suggested that transferring Weston to a nearby prison might alleviate the concerns raised by his legal representative, and directed that such a transfer be facilitated. The court did not anticipate the bail application being brought on again, assuming the transfer could be facilitated.

In summary, the court ruled that the evidence obtained from the search of Weston's vehicle was admissible, granted the Crown's application to admit propensity evidence, denied the severance and change of venue applications, and suggested a transfer to a nearby prison to address concerns raised in the bail application.

Orders