Reid v R - [2013] NZCA 89

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA697/2012
[2013] NZCA 89

BETWEEN CRAIG STEWART REID
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 7 March 2013

Court: Ellen France, Keane and Miller JJ

Counsel: D G A Reece for Appellant
J M Jelas for Respondent

Judgment: 27 March 2013 at 1 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against sentence is allowed.
BThe sentence of four years, nine months imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of four years imprisonment substituted. The concurrent six month sentences will stand.

___________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Keane J)

On 5 October 2012 Craig Reid was sentenced in the District Court, Auckland, to imprisonment for four years, nine months, for possessing for supply 27.67 grams of methamphetamine on 17 February 2011 and 15 grams on 20 April 2011.[1] He was sentenced to six months imprisonment concurrently for possessing pipes.
[1] R v Reid DC Auckland CRI-2011-004-7301, 5 October 2012.
On this appeal Mr Reid contends that his sentence is manifestly excessive because the sentencing Judge, Judge Wade, took too high a starting point, five years, and increased that excessively by 18 months to six years, six months, because he had offended while on post home detention conditions and bail. Conversely, he contends, the Judge gave him too slight a discount for remorse and an insufficient credit for the effort he had made to rid himself of his addiction.
The Crown contends that the Judge’s starting point and the uplift he made are not manifestly excessive but that the credit he allowed Mr Reid for rehabilitating himself was at the lowest end of the range.

Offences

On 17 February 2011, according to the statement of facts on sentence, which differs from that we received on the appeal, Mr Reid drove a truck to a North Shore address just as the police were completing a search without warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. He threw a fabric glasses case and a bottle of pepper spray out the passenger side window. Inside the glasses case was methamphetamine in three snap lock bags, pocket scales and two glass pipes.
Mr Reid and his truck were then searched without warrant and he was found to have on him, or in various parts of the truck, 27.67 grams of methamphetamine, said to be worth on the street $16,800–$27,000. In his wallet was $5,410 cash, mostly in $20 and $50 notes. In a black bag was $600 cash. Mr Reid was charged with the related offences and remanded on bail.
On 20 April 2011, according to the related statement of facts we also received on the appeal, as to which there is no issue, the police executed a search warrant at Mr Reid’s bail address, and found him asleep. Next to him in a shoulder bag were digital scales and a metal tin containing a large number of empty snap lock bags. In 15 separate snap lock bags they found some 15 grams of methamphetamine. Elsewhere they found a…

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 Reid v R

Details

AGLC: Reid v R [2013] NZCA 89
Case: [2013] NZCA 89
Decision Date: 27 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Craig Reid appealed against his sentence imposed in the District Court for possession of methamphetamine for supply and possession of pipes. Reid's conviction was upheld, but his appeal against the severity of his sentence was allowed. The Court of Appeal found that the starting point of five years for Reid's sentence was at the upper extremity of the appropriate range, and that the 18-month uplift for his breaches of home detention and bail conditions was excessive. The Court also found that the six-month discount for Reid's rehabilitation efforts was too low, and that a 12-month discount was more appropriate. As a result, Reid's sentence was reduced from four years and nine months to four years, with the concurrent six-month sentences for possession of pipes remaining unchanged.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the relevant cases and found that the starting point and uplift for Reid's sentence were not aligned with analogous cases. The Court noted that the starting point was at the upper extremity of the appropriate range, and that the 18-month uplift was excessive given the high starting point and the fact that Reid's breaches were explained by his addiction. The Court also found that the six-month discount for Reid's rehabilitation efforts was too low, and that a 12-month discount was more appropriate given the concerted effort Reid had made to wean himself from his addiction. The Court noted that there have been instances where higher discounts have been endorsed. The Court also found that the warning given by the sentencing Judge was unnecessary and excessive, as the severity of the sentence imposed spoke for itself.

Orders