Legal Research
Cases
Taylor v R

Taylor v R

Case [2018] NZHC 688 18 April 2018

Discharge Without Conviction

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2018-416-6

[2018] NZHC 688

BETWEEN
JANINE MARY TAYLOR

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 20 March 2018

Counsel:

N H Wright for Appellant C C Gullidge for Crown

Judgment:

18 April 2018

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

Introduction

[1] Janine Taylor was sentenced on 16 January 2018 in the Gisborne District Court1 to three months’ home detention following guilty pleas to charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply2 and conspiracy to supply methamphetamine (with George Te Aho and Samuel Sheridan).3 Ms Taylor now appeals her sentence on the grounds that refusing to discharge her without conviction was in error, given the minimal role she played in circumstances of fear of violence.

1      R v Taylor [2018] NZDC 656.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(5 and 6(2), maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Section 6(2A)(a), maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

TAYLOR v R [2018] NZHC 688 [18 April 2018]

Factual background

[2] Ms Taylor and Mr Te Aho have had an on-off relationship for the past 12 years and have three daughters together. Mr Te Aho was arrested on 12 November 2016 on what the summary of facts describes as unrelated charges. Given comments in the psychologist’s report referred to later in this decision, it is likely the arrest was for domestic violence towards Ms Taylor. As will become apparent, this type of behaviour was not unrelated but highly relevant to Ms Taylor’s offending.

[3] Mr Te Aho was remanded in custody. Phone calls between the two were recorded, averaging three a day between 24 November to 30 December 2016. In these calls, Mr Te Aho and Ms Taylor discussed matters including, with varying degrees of transparency, methamphetamine dealing. It is accepted the conversations were generally one way, involving Mr Te Aho issuing directions and instructions to Ms Taylor, becoming insistent, demanding and threatening if Ms Taylor displayed reluctance to be involved.

[4] In the conversations, Ms Taylor confirmed she had given bags, scales and a phone to Mr Sheridan, a co-offender. Mr Te Aho told Ms Taylor that he and Mr Sheridan were a team and Mr Sheridan would keep the money turning over for him and generate more money. Recordings, primarily between Mr Te Aho and Mr Sheridan, discussed the supply to others of methamphetamine. Conversations between Mr Te Aho and Ms Taylor show Mr Te Aho keeping her informed of some matters and issuing instructions.

[5] The conspiracy to supply charge covers the period 24 November to 30 December 2016. The conservative total estimate of the amount Mr Te Aho, Mr Sheridan and Ms Taylor conspired to supply over this time is approximately seven grams of methamphetamine.

[6] The possession for supply charge, where Ms Taylor was charged jointly with Mr Te Aho, concerned Ms Taylor complying with a direction from Mr Te Aho to obtain approximately half a gram of methamphetamine from Mr Sheridan and give it to two other…

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 Taylor v R

Details

AGLC: Taylor v R [2018] NZHC 688
Case: [2018] NZHC 688
Decision Date: 18 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Janine Mary Taylor appealed against her sentence imposed by the Gisborne District Court. Ms Taylor was sentenced to three months’ home detention following guilty pleas to charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply and conspiracy to supply methamphetamine. Ms Taylor appealed the refusal of the District Court to discharge her without conviction. The Court considered whether the refusal was in error given Ms Taylor's minimal role in the offending and circumstances of fear of violence. The Court held that the sentencing Judge did not adopt the correct approach in assessing whether a discharge without conviction was appropriate. The Judge failed to consider the gravity of Ms Taylor’s offending specifically, instead focusing on the starting point for offending of this type and the consequences of a conviction. The Court held that a discharge without conviction was appropriate in this exceptional case. Ms Taylor's convictions were quashed and she was discharged without conviction in respect of both charges.

Orders