Ramsey v The Queen - [2013] NZCA 277

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA550/2012
[2013] NZCA 277

BETWEEN	ALBERT MARK RAMSEY Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	13 June 2013
Court:	Randerson, Courtney and Dobson JJ
Counsel:	M Ryan for Appellant B D Tantrum for Respondent
Judgment:	3 July 2013 at 11:00am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

Introduction

The appellant Mr Ramsey was found guilty after jury trial before Judge Adeane in the District Court on 27 June 2012 of five counts of possession of cannabis for sale. The trial Judge sentenced Mr Ramsey on 17 August 2012 to three years imprisonment.[1]
[1]R v Ramsey DC Napier CRI-2010-041-2782, 17 August 2012.
The police executed a search warrant at Mr Ramsey’s rural property in Hawkes Bay on 2 September 2010. Mr Ramsey was observed throwing a 200 litre plastic container over a deer fence and into a gully. A second container was located near the first one. They contained two and a half kilograms and one and a half kilograms of cannabis head respectively. A further container of half a kilogram of cannabis head was located after a police dog tracked from Mr Ramsey’s property across the road into a forestry plantation. A fourth container with half a kilogram of cannabis head was found in a plastic bag on the fence-line of Mr Ramsey’s farm. Finally, a further plastic container containing half a kilogram of cannabis was found on Mr Ramsey’s property after another search on 29 September 2010.
In all, 4.6 kilograms of good quality, unseeded cannabis head was located along with a further .6 of a kilogram of seeded head and some mixed cannabis of no particular value or significance. The police conservatively placed the value of this product at $25,000 on the wholesale market. Other cannabis plant was found as a result of the searches but no charges were laid in relation to that material.
Count 1 related to the container Mr Ramsey was seen throwing into the gully. He admitted possession of the cannabis in that container but denied that he had it for the purpose of sale. In evidence, he said he had intended to destroy the cannabis or to give it to the police. Counts 2 to 5 related to the other quantities of cannabis found on Mr Ramsey’s property and on the forestry plantation. His defence in respect of those counts was that he knew nothing about the cannabis and did not therefore possess it. Alternatively, even if he was found to possess the cannabis, it was not for the purpose of sale. It was pointed out on his behalf that none of the usual indicia for sale were found such as tinfoil, zip lock plastic bags for packaging into smaller quantities, tick lists, or scales.
Mr Ramsey appeals against his conviction on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice arose for three reasons:
(a)The search warrant executed by the police on…

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 Ramsey v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ramsey v The Queen [2013] NZCA 277
Case: [2013] NZCA 277
Decision Date: 3 July 2013 at 11:00am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Albert Mark Ramsey, the appellant, was convicted in the District Court of five counts of possession of cannabis for sale. He appealed both his conviction and the sentence to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appeal against conviction was based on three grounds: the search warrant was improperly issued, the trial Judge intervened excessively, and the Judge misdirected the jury. The appeal against sentence claimed it was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal found the search warrant to be properly issued based on detailed and reliable information provided by an informant. The Court also determined that the Judge's interventions during the trial were not excessive or prejudicial. Although the Court agreed that the Judge's summing-up could have been worded better, it found that the jury would not have been misled or prejudiced. The Court concluded that the circumstantial evidence presented by the defence had little prospect of success given the statutory presumption and the overwhelming inference from the sheer quantity of cannabis located. Regarding the sentence, the Court found that the Judge correctly assessed the appellant's culpability and there were no mitigating circumstances justifying a reduction in sentence.

The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed. The Court found the search warrant to be properly issued, the Judge's interventions during the trial not excessive or prejudicial, and the jury would not have been misled or prejudiced by the summing-up. The circumstantial evidence presented by the defence had little prospect of success given the statutory presumption and the overwhelming inference from the sheer quantity of cannabis located. The Court found that the Judge correctly assessed the appellant's culpability and there were no mitigating circumstances justifying a reduction in sentence.

Orders