Legal Research
Cases
Taylor v R

Taylor v R

Case [2018] NZCA 444 19 October 2018

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA403/2018
[2018] NZCA 444

BETWEEN	BRIAN PAUL TAYLOR Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	4 October 2018
Court:	Miller, Woolford and Collins JJ
Counsel:	JHM Eaton QC for Appellant B Hawes and H F McKenzie for Respondent
Judgment:	19 October 2018 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
B The appeal is allowed. The sentence is quashed.
CA sentence of four years and one month’s imprisonment, to be served cumulatively on the existing sentence, is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Collins J)

Introduction

Mr Taylor appeals a sentence of five years and six months imprisonment imposed by Judge Edwards in the District Court at Palmerston North on 7 November 2017, in relation to eight charges of supplying methamphetamine and one charge of conspiring to supply cannabis.[1] The sentence was imposed cumulatively with a sentence of 16 years imprisonment that Mr Taylor was already serving.
[1]R v Taylor [2017] NZDC 25439 [Sentencing judgment].
Mr Taylor requires an extension of time as his notice of appeal was filed seven months out of time. The Crown properly accepts it has not been prejudiced by the delay and does not oppose an extension being granted. We therefore grant Mr Taylor’s application for an extension of time to appeal.

Background

In November 2004, Mr Taylor was sentenced on appeal to a total of 11 years imprisonment in relation to a number of charges, the most serious of which were two charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and one charge of aggravated robbery.[2] The effect of the sentence imposed by Judge Edwards is that Mr Taylor will serve, in total, 21 years and six months in prison for all of his offending, including offending that pre-dates the November 2004 judgment.
[2]Taylor v R CA178/04, 22 November 2004 at [36]. In that case, this Court reached an effective end sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment for Mr Taylor’s offending, but that was imposed cumulatively on sentences Mr Taylor was already serving for earlier offending. The combined effective sentence was 16 years’ imprisonment.
At the time of the offending to which this appeal relates, Mr Taylor was a prisoner at Manawatu Prison. His security classification meant that the Department of Corrections did not consider him eligible for reintegrative activities, such as the release to work programme or temporary releases. As a consequence, Mr Taylor’s applications for parole had been rejected by the Parole Board.
In November 2016, police commenced an investigation into methamphetamine dealing in the Manawatu area, focusing upon communications traced to Mr Taylor in Manawatu Prison. This investigation found Mr Taylor was running a methamphetamine supply operation. Others involved in the operation included Mr Taylor’s mother, whose role was described as “an active investor”. During the period the operation was monitored, police…

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] NZCA 444
Case: [2018] NZCA 444
Decision Date: 19 October 2018 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Taylor v R, Brian Paul Taylor appeals against his sentence of five years and six months imprisonment imposed by Judge Edwards in the District Court at Palmerston North. The sentence was imposed cumulatively with a sentence of 16 years imprisonment that Taylor was already serving. Taylor was convicted of eight charges of supplying methamphetamine and one charge of conspiring to supply cannabis. The court granted Taylor an extension of time to appeal as his notice of appeal was filed seven months out of time. The Crown did not oppose the extension as they had not been prejudiced by the delay.

The court considered the legal issues of whether the starting point and uplift for the offending occurring in prison were within the range that was reasonably available, and whether the totality principle was properly applied. The court found that the starting point and uplift were within the range that was reasonably available. However, the court found that the totality principle was not properly applied as the sentence imposed was crushing and did not provide Taylor with hope of being reintegrated into society. The court substituted the discount of nine months for totality adopted in the District Court with one of two years and two months. This means Taylor’s end sentence will be reduced to four years and one month’s imprisonment, to be served cumulatively on his existing sentence.

The court allowed Taylor's appeal against sentence and substituted the discount of nine months for totality adopted in the District Court with one of two years and two months. This means Taylor’s end sentence will be reduced to four years and one month’s imprisonment, to be served cumulatively on his existing sentence. The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted. The sentence is quashed and a sentence of four years and one month’s imprisonment, to be served cumulatively on the existing sentence, is substituted.

Orders