Reedy v The the King - [2022] NZHC 3011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2022-419-000042

[2022] NZHC 3011

BETWEEN
AARON REEDY

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 15 November 2022

Appearances:

G Walsh for Appellant

B Harris for the Respondent

Judgment:

15 November 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

(Appeal against sentence)

Solicitors/counsel:
G Walsh, Hamilton
Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

AARON REEDY v R [2022] NZHC 3011 [15 November 2022]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Aaron Reedy, appeals against a sentence of two years and 10 months’ imprisonment imposed on him by Judge N D Cocurullo in the District Court at Hamilton1 in relation to one charge of supplying methamphetamine2 and one charge of offering to supply methamphetamine.3 The Judge at the same time discharged Mr Reedy on two further charges (conspiracy to supply methamphetamine and offering to sell cannabis) pursuant to s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[2] Mr Reedy appeals his sentence on the basis that the discounts allowed by the Judge for his personal circumstances were inadequate. He says that as a result, the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

[3]The Crown opposes the appeal.

The offending

[4] On 10 September 2020, at approximately 10.50 pm, Mr Reedy was driving a vehicle in Hamilton. Police approached the vehicle and observed a knife in the right rear footwell where a passenger was sitting. A warrantless search was conducted. Police located digital scales, a walkie talkie, a glass methamphetamine pipe and
$25,850 in cash. They also seized cellphones from Mr Reedy and his son, who was also a passenger in the vehicle.

[5] Police subsequently obtained text message data from Mr Reedy’s cellphone. An analysis of the data showed that Mr Reedy had supplied or offered to supply methamphetamine on at least 34 occasions between 11 August 2020 and 11 September 2020. Twenty-four of the supplies or offers to supply contained a quantifiable amount
– in total 72.4 grams of methamphetamine; the remaining 10 supplies or offers to supply did not specify amounts. The text message data also showed that on 23 August 2020, Mr Reedy sent a message to an unknown person, seeking to purchase 56 grams of methamphetamine for the purposes of supplying it to others.

1      R v Reedy [2022] NZDC 12124.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.

[6] In explanation, Mr Reedy stated he had won the money found in his possession at the casino. He denied any knowledge of the methamphetamine pipe or the knife.

District Court sentencing

[7] The Judge referred to a sentence indication he had given to Mr Reedy in March 2022. That indication had been accepted. The Judge had there placed the offending within band two identified in the guideline decision in Zhang v R,4 and described the offending as low-level street dealing, although noting Mr Reedy had a “significant” role.5 The Judge had indicated…

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 Reedy v The the King

Details

AGLC: Reedy v The the King [2022] NZHC 3011
Case: [2022] NZHC 3011
Decision Date: 15 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aaron Reedy appeals against a sentence of two years and 10 months’ imprisonment for supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine. He argues that the discounts allowed for his personal circumstances were inadequate, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. The Crown opposes the appeal. The District Court had imposed the sentence after considering a s 27 report and evidence of Reedy's remorse and willingness to rehabilitate, as well as his medical condition.

The appeal court must determine if there was an error in the sentence, focusing on whether the sentence is within range rather than the process by which it was reached. Reedy does not challenge the starting point, the uplift for previous convictions, or the discount for guilty pleas. He argues that a 20 per cent discount should have been allowed for the matters outlined in the s 27 report and that, considering his remorse, rehabilitative prospects, and medical position, an overall discount of 30 per cent for personal circumstances was warranted. The Crown contends that the 10 per cent discount for the matters in the s 27 report was adequate, and the five per cent discount allowed for other factors was appropriate.

The court considered the factors outlined in the s 27 report, which were largely self-reported by Reedy. It found a causal link between these factors and Reedy's offending, but not a strong one. The court considered that the 10 per cent discount allowed by the Judge was adequate, and that any adjustment would be inappropriate tinkering. The court also found that the five per cent discount for remorse, willingness to rehabilitate, and health conditions was not in error. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders