Satherley v The Queen - [2020] NZCA 171

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA659/2019
[2020] NZCA 171

BETWEEN	DEBORAH MARIE SATHERLEY Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	20 April 2020
Court:	French, Dobson and Nation JJ
Counsel:	D J Matthews and R T Nye-Wood for Appellant S R D D Bicknell Young and B Hawes for Respondent
Judgment:	20 May 2020 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
BThe appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Nation J)

Introduction

At a trial before a jury in the District Court at Nelson in April 2018, Ms Satherley was found guilty on charges of possessing methamphetamine for supply, possessing cannabis, obstructing a constable and unlawful possession of a restricted weapon.
On 13 June 2018, Judge Tompkins sentenced Ms Satherley to a term of imprisonment of three years and three months.[1] Ms Satherley now seeks to appeal that sentence.
[1]R v Satherley [2018] NZDC 11785.
Ms Satherley filed her appeal on 16 December 2019, over a year out of time. In an affidavit, Ms Satherley explained she understood her trial lawyer, and then another lawyer whom he had arranged to take over the case, would be filing an appeal after she had been sentenced. Later, she applied for legal aid to assist with an appeal. The Public Defence Service was assigned in September 2019. Mr Matthews explained there was then further delay when they were required by Legal Services to review the case and confirm legal aid would be available for an appeal. The Crown did not agree that an extension of time should be granted but acknowledged there had been no prejudice and they had been able to address the appeal on its merits.
The time for the filing of the appeal is accordingly extended.

Background

On 12 December 2016, police executed a search warrant at Ms Satherley’s address. They found approximately 18 grams of methamphetamine divided between several snaplock bags and pill containers. In Ms Satherley’s handbag, the police found a snaplock bag and a further quantity of methamphetamine along with a notebook containing a “ticklist” detailing what appeared to be transactions of $157,925, and references to weights such as “half oz” (that is, ounce). There were two straws used for consuming methamphetamine.
The police also found electronic scales of the sort commonly associated with drug dealing. There were CCTV cameras showing the entrance to the house on televisions at the address.
Located beside the bed was approximately 28 grams of dried cannabis. On a bedside cabinet was a working taser that also incorporated a torch.
When the police entered the address, Ms Satherley attempted to hide an item down the side of a couch. A constable told her to leave that position. The constable restrained Ms Satherley who struggled and had to be handcuffed.
Ms Satherley was on electronically monitored (EM) bail from 25 January 2017 until she was sentenced.
At her trial, Ms…

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 Satherley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Satherley v The Queen [2020] NZCA 171
Case: [2020] NZCA 171
Decision Date: 20 May 2020 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Deborah Marie Satherley sought to appeal her conviction and sentence imposed by the District Court at Nelson. The District Court found her guilty of possessing methamphetamine for supply, possessing cannabis, obstructing a constable and unlawful possession of a restricted weapon. She was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and three months. The appeal was filed over a year out of time. Satherley sought an extension of time to appeal and the Crown opposed the application. The Court of Appeal granted the application for an extension of time to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The Court found the starting point adopted by the sentencing Judge for the methamphetamine offending was within range, having regard to the way the guidelines in R v Fatu had been applied in the cases referred to by both Satherley and the Crown. The Court found there was no error in the Judge allowing Satherley a credit of three months on compassionate grounds. The Court was not persuaded that the starting point adopted for the methamphetamine offending was in error or that the ultimate sentence was manifestly excessive.

Orders