Legal Research
Cases
Taylor v R

Taylor v R

Case [2020] NZCA 584 23 November 2020

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA414/2020
[2020] NZCA 584

BETWEEN	LUKE JAMES TAYLOR Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	11 November 2020
Court:	Courtney, Woolford and Mander JJ
Counsel:	E P Priest and P D Wilks for Appellant R L Mann for Respondent
Judgment:	23 November 2020 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to file an affidavit in support of the application for an extension of time to file an appeal is granted.
BThe application for an extension of time to file an appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Mander J)

On 2 February 2015, Luke Taylor was sentenced to six and half years’ imprisonment on four charges of importing methamphetamine, one of conspiring to import methamphetamine and one of possessing that drug for supply.[1] On 29 July 2020, he gave notice that he wished to appeal that sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. Mr Taylor alleged that the sentencing Judge failed to apply appropriate discounts for cultural and personal factors to be set out in a report that would be prepared for the appeal under s 27 Sentencing Act 2002, and in recognition of his youth.

Background

[1]R v Taylor [2015] NZDC 1412.

The charges of importation, conspiracy and possession of methamphetamine for supply related to four importations of the drug through the mail between February and April 2014. Mr Taylor admitted that the first importation was of 160 g of methamphetamine. This was consistent with the amount located when the fourth shipment was intercepted by Customs. The quantities imported as a result of the second and third shipments could not be ascertained and the sentencing Judge proceeded on the basis that at least 320 g had been imported. It was, however, reasonable to assume that a greater amount of methamphetamine had been imported.

Sentencing in the District Court

Mr Taylor received a sentence indication from Judge Thomas on 3 December 2014. Applying the guideline judgment of this Court that applied at the time, R v Fatu, it was determined that the offending fell within band three and that a starting point of nine years’ imprisonment was appropriate.[2] A full discount of 25 per cent was extended for the guilty pleas, which resulted in an indicated end sentence of six years and nine months’ imprisonment.
[2]R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA) at [36].
At sentencing, Judge Thomas addressed the issue of whether there was room for any additional discount. Mr Taylor’s grandfather had addressed the Court about Mr Taylor’s background. The Judge described the information that had been provided in the following way:[3]
I have heard this morning from Mr Koroko, your grandfather, on your behalf. He detailed the difficult circumstances you had as a child and through your teens, the opportunities that you have missed out on and the problems that you and your family have had balancing your care with your needs and the…

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 [2020] NZCA 584
Case: [2020] NZCA 584
Decision Date: 23 November 2020 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luke James Taylor appeals against his sentence of six and a half years’ imprisonment for importing methamphetamine, conspiring to import methamphetamine and possessing that drug for supply. The appeal is brought out of time. Mr Taylor claims his sentence was manifestly excessive because the sentencing Judge failed to apply appropriate discounts for cultural and personal factors and for his youth. The Court of Appeal considers whether the delay in bringing the appeal can be adequately explained and whether the appeal has sufficient merit. The Court notes that Mr Taylor’s application for leave to appeal is based on a misapprehension that the sentencing approach taken for methamphetamine offending has changed and that the recent guideline judgment of the Court applies to his appeal. The Court concludes that the sentencing approach applied at the time of Mr Taylor’s sentencing was orthodox and not seriously capable of being argued as having resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence. In addition, the delay in bringing the appeal weighs heavily against leave being granted. The Court declines leave to appeal out of time.

The Court of Appeal declines the application for leave to appeal out of time.

Orders