Legal Research
Cases
Steyn v The King

Steyn v The King

Case [2023] NZHC 3359 24 November 2023

Totality of Offending

Manifestly Excessive

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2023-483-000017

CRI-2023-483-000018 [2023] NZHC 3359

BETWEEN
BERNARD WILLIAM STEYN

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 21 November 2023

Appearances:

N P Bourke for Appellant J C H Liu for Respondent

Judgment:

24 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Andrew on 24 November 2023 at 1.00 pm
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date ………………………….

STEYN v R [2023] NZHC 3359 [24 November 2023]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Mr Bernard Steyn, pleaded guilty in the Whanganui District Court to seven drug-related charges. This included offering to supply methamphetamine, a class A drug. He was sentenced by Judge J Krebs to 27 months and two weeks’ imprisonment on all charges.1 He appeals to this Court, contending that the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

[2] Mr Bourke, on behalf of Mr Steyn, submits that an end sentence of two years’ imprisonment or less is appropriate and that the Court should consider imposing a sentence of home detention instead of imprisonment.

[3]There are four main grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant:

(a)the global starting point was outside the available range;

(b)the four-month uplift for offending on bail was excessive;

(c)insufficient credit was given for mitigating factors; and

(d)a non-custodial sentence is appropriate.

[4]The Crown opposes the appeal.

Background facts

[5] There are two sets of charges relating to two distinct time periods. The first set of charges arise from Police analysis of Mr Steyn’s cellphone communications between June and July 2022. This analysis revealed several text message conversations in relation to potential drug deals. Across these conversations, Mr Steyn offered to supply a total of 7.3 grams of methamphetamine and 7 grams of cannabis. In September 2022, a search warrant was executed at Mr Steyn’s address. During the search the following was located at his property:

1 R v Steyn [2023] NZDC 21266.

(a)a total of 14 grams of methamphetamine;

(b)five tabs of LSD; and

(c)a total of 23 grams of cannabis.

[6]As a result of this offending, Mr Steyn was charged with the following:

(a)one representative charge of offering to supply a Class A drug (methamphetamine);2

(b)one representative charge of offering to supply a Class C drug (cannabis);3
(c)possession for supply of methamphetamine;4

(d)possession for supply of LSD;5 and

(e)possession for supply of cannabis.6

[7] During the execution of the search warrant, Police also located two small sets of digital scales and a large quantity of unused small plastic bags. Mr Steyn was released on bail awaiting sentencing on these charges.

[8] On 11 May 2023, Mr Steyn received a sentence indication from Judge Krebs in relation to these charges. That indication involved a starting point of three years’ imprisonment and a 25 per cent discount for guilty pleas, which Mr Steyn immediately accepted.7 His sentencing was adjourned until 27 September 2023 to allow him to engage with rehabilitation and for…

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 Steyn v The King

Details

AGLC: Steyn v The King [2023] NZHC 3359
Case: [2023] NZHC 3359
Decision Date: 24 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Bernard William Steyn appealed against his sentence imposed by the Whanganui District Court for seven drug-related charges, including offering to supply methamphetamine, a class A drug. Steyn argued that the 27 months and two weeks’ imprisonment sentence was manifestly excessive, raising four grounds of appeal. These grounds included the starting point being outside the available range, the four-month uplift for offending on bail being excessive, insufficient credit being given for mitigating factors, and a non-custodial sentence being appropriate. The Crown opposed the appeal.

The court examined whether the starting point, uplift for offending on bail, and discounts for mitigating factors resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence. The court found that while the starting point was at the high end of the available range, the four-month uplift for offending while on bail was within range, as was the discount applied for mitigating factors. Considering the totality of the offending, which included possession of LSD for supply in addition to methamphetamine, the court concluded that the sentence was stern but not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed. The sentence was not manifestly excessive, and a non-custodial sentence was not appropriate in this case. The court did not find any material error in the sentence that warranted a different sentence to be imposed.

Orders