Stiles v Police - [2016] NZHC 2098

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2016-488-21 [2016] NZHC 2098

BETWEEN
THOMAS ERIC TAMAHA STILES

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 5 September 2016

Appearances:

M P Hislop for the Appellant
J W Wall for the Respondent

Judgment:

5 September 2016

ORALJUDGMENT OF MUIR J (Sentence Appeal)

Counsel/Solicitors:
M P Hislop, Barrister, Auckland
J W Wall, Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

STILES v POLICE [2016] NZHC 2098 [5 September 2016]

Introduction

[1] The appellant Mr Thomas Stiles was convicted of four charges before Judge Hunt on 6 May 2016 including two charges of possession of cannabis, one of dangerous driving and one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply. He was sentenced to three years one months’ imprisonment on the lead charge of methamphetamine for supply, and concurrent sentences of two months’ imprisonment in relation to the cannabis and one month imprisonment with a 12 month disqualification on the driving charge.

[2] He appeals on grounds which in Mr Hislop’s written submissions included a challenge to the starting point as manifestly excessive and on the further grounds that there should not have been an uplift for his prior drug related offending and that insufficient weight was given to his remorse and rehabilitation efforts.

Factual background

[3] Mr Stiles’ property was searched at around 10 am on 20 February 2016 pursuant to a warrant obtained by the police in relation to suspected manufacture of methamphetamine. The police found large amounts of cash in Mr Stiles’ possession and in his car which have subsequently been forfeited. In the car they found $30,000 in $5,000 bundles hidden and on his person $2,457. The police also found 8.4 grams of methamphetamine, 20 cell phones, 90.18 grams of vacuum packed cannabis, two knives, scales, and various snap-lock bags.

[4] In respect of the dangerous driving charge the relevant facts were Mr Stiles was stopped on an earlier date travelling at 120 kms/hr in a 70 km/hr permanent speed zone in Kaikohe. His explanation was that his speedometer was broken.

History of offending

[5] Mr Stiles has a history of methamphetamine dependence and related offending. In total he has 63 prior convictions, 15 of which relate to drug offending. Among those are convictions for possession of methamphetamine in 2005, 2008,
2010 and 2011.

[6] He also has a number of serious driving convictions including driving while impaired in 2011, dangerous driving in 2010, reckless driving in 2011, sustained loss of traction 2008, and dangerous speeding in 2003, to highlight only some of these offences.

[7] In 2011 he was sentenced to 11 months home detention for a combination of charges relating to methamphetamine, including possession of equipment and materials, receiving and firearms charges. That sentence concluded in February
2015 and he was subject to probation for much of that year.

District Court Decision

[8] In a very thorough and, in my assessment, humane consideration of Mr Stiles’ history, psychological issues and drug dependence, the learned District Court Judge adopted a starting point of three…

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 Stiles v Police

Details

AGLC: Stiles v Police [2016] NZHC 2098
Case: [2016] NZHC 2098
Decision Date: 5 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Thomas Eric Tamaha Stiles appeals against his conviction and sentence for possession of cannabis, methamphetamine for supply, and dangerous driving. The District Court found Stiles guilty and sentenced him to three years and one month's imprisonment for methamphetamine for supply, and concurrent sentences for the other charges. The primary issues in the appeal were whether the starting point for sentencing was manifestly excessive, whether there should have been an uplift for prior drug-related offending, and whether insufficient weight was given to Stiles' remorse and rehabilitation efforts.

The High Court considered the appropriate starting point for sentencing, taking into account the quantity of methamphetamine and the indicia of commerciality, including the large amount of cash and other dealing paraphernalia. The Court found that the starting point of three years and 10 months was within the appropriate range. The Court also agreed with the District Court's decision to impose an uplift of four months for prior offending, as Stiles had a history of methamphetamine dependence and related offending. Furthermore, the Court found no error in the District Court's decision not to allow a discrete discount for remorse and rehabilitation, as Stiles had continued offending despite psychological interventions and had not adequately engaged with the services available to him.

The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence imposed was within the range that could properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles. The Court emphasised the importance of deterrence in cases involving commercial dealing in controlled drugs and noted the potential for methamphetamine to cause significant harm. While acknowledging Stiles' unfortunate personal circumstances, the Court found no reliable basis for a discount in this case. The Court expressed hope for Stiles in addressing his addiction and rehabilitation.

The final orders of the Court were to dismiss the appeal and to express hope for Stiles in addressing his addiction and rehabilitation.

Orders