Sheed v The the King - [2022] NZCA 440

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA75/2022
[2022] NZCA 440

BETWEEN	RICKY CHARLES SHEED Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	15 August 2022
Court:	Collins, Duffy and Edwards JJ
Counsel:	E Huda for Appellant T S Simpson and P D Marshall for Respondent
Judgment:	19 September 2022 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is granted.
BThe application to adduce further evidence is granted.
CThe appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Duffy J)

The appellant, Ricky Charles Sheed, appeals against his sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment.[1] He was sentenced in the District Court following a jury trial in which guilty verdicts were delivered on two charges under the Arms Act 1983 for possession of a .22 Webley & Scott firearm and possession of 83 rounds of .22 calibre ammunition.[2] Nine of those rounds were loaded in the magazine of the firearm when it was found by police.
[1]R v Sheed [2021] NZDC 24178.
[2]The charge notice for the ammunition charge refers to 83 rounds however in sentencing Mr Sheed Judge O’Driscoll referred to “some 74 rounds of ammunition”: see R v Sheed, above n 1, at [2]. This is because the charge sheet presumably includes the 9 rounds of ammunition found inside the gun. Mr Sheed was also convicted and discharged on a charge of possession of cannabis to which he pleaded guilty; this sentence forms no part of the appeal.
The appeal is 13 days out of time. As the delay is short and has been explained, the Crown do not oppose an extension of time. Accordingly the extension of time is granted.

Facts

Mr Sheed resides in Invercargill. On 7 November 2020 his van was seized while it was in Christchurch. He could not collect it until 7 December 2020. He went to Christchurch with that purpose in mind and while there he stayed at the gang pad of the Mongols. He is a patched member of that gang. While at the pad he acted as a substitute for another member who was assigned to guard duty.
At approximately 7.00 am on 7 December 2020 the police conducted a raid on the pad. They found three people present, one of whom was Mr Sheed. When the police arrived, he was seen coming out of a sleepout on the property. The other two persons were in a separate building. He left the pad around 9.00 am for Invercargill.
Police remained on site. At approximately 10.00 am they found the .22 firearm and ammunition hidden behind a wardrobe in the bedroom of the sleepout. The next day police went to Mr Sheed’s home in Invercargill. He was arrested for possessing the firearm and ammunition found in the sleepout. The police searched his vehicle and found a laser bore sighting tool in the glovebox. This was capable of being attached to the .22 rifle.
At the time…

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 Sheed v The the King

Details

AGLC: Sheed v The the King [2022] NZCA 440
Case: [2022] NZCA 440
Decision Date: 19 September 2022 at 9.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sheed v The King, Ricky Charles Sheed appealed against his sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment. The appellant was sentenced in the District Court following a jury trial in which he was found guilty of two charges under the Arms Act 1983 for possession of a .22 Webley & Scott firearm and possession of 83 rounds of .22 calibre ammunition. The legal issues that the Court of Appeal of New Zealand had to decide included whether the appeal was within time, whether the court should allow the appellant to adduce further evidence in the form of a section 27 report, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or contained some other material error of sentencing process.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was 13 days out of time, but as the delay was short and had been explained, and the Crown did not oppose the extension of time, the extension was granted. The court also granted the application to adduce further evidence in the form of a section 27 report. The Court of Appeal was not convinced that the circumstances of the offending were less serious than those in Torea v R, and they were satisfied that a starting point of two years and six months’ imprisonment was available. The court also held that the section 27 report added little to the sentencing considerations and there was no basis for an additional discount based on the report. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and there was no other material error of sentencing process. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time was granted, the application to adduce further evidence was granted, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders