BThe appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of seven years imprisonment with a minimum term of non-parole of three and a half years cumulative upon the appellant’s current term of imprisonment is quashed. A sentence of five and a half years imprisonment with a minimum term of non-parole of two years and nine months cumulative upon the appellant’s current term of imprisonment is substituted.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

Introduction

Arthur William Taylor was found guilty on one charge of conspiring to supply methamphetamine following a trial before a Judge and jury in the High Court at Auckland in February 2011. He was acquitted on three additional charges of offering to supply methamphetamine. The trial Judge, Wylie J, sentenced him to a term of seven years imprisonment cumulative upon an existing term of 12 years, with a minimum term of non-parole of three and a half years.[1]
[1] R v Taylor HC Auckland CRI-2010-404-355, 19 May 2011.
Mr Taylor appeals against his conviction on the grounds that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable or that there was a miscarriage of justice. He appeals against his sentence on the ground that it was excessive and a minimum term should not have been imposed.
We record that in memoranda filed with the Court before the hearing of his appeal, and again at the commencement of the hearing itself, Mr Taylor complained that the prison authorities had deprived him of adequate facilities to properly prepare his argument on appeal and, as a result, he had been unable to provide a written synopsis of submissions. However, Mr Taylor had earlier filed a well particularised notice of appeal, and he was able to advance and develop his grounds fully and articulately in argument before us. We were satisfied that Mr Taylor was not at all disadvantaged in presenting his appeal by any difficulties he may have encountered with the prison authorities.

Facts

At the time of the alleged offending Mr Taylor was a serving prisoner at Paremoremo Prison, near Auckland. Over a continuous 32 hour period in early June 2007 the police intercepted a number of communications between Mr Taylor and two other men, Messrs Ulaiasi Pulete and Wayne Clarke, in the form of calls and texts to and from a mobile telephone which was illegally in Mr Taylor’s possession. The police were acting pursuant to a warrant earlier issued by the High Court under the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978.
Wylie J summarised the evidence relating to the intercepted communications in this way when sentencing Messrs Taylor and Pulete on 19 May 2011:
[7] The conversations commenced at 4.15 pm on 2…

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 [2012] NZCA 332
Case: [2012] NZCA 332
Decision Date: 27 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Arthur William Taylor, a serving prisoner, was convicted of conspiring to supply methamphetamine. He appealed against both his conviction and his sentence. Taylor argued that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or that there was a miscarriage of justice, but the Court found that the Crown's case had a strong factual foundation and dismissed the appeal against conviction. Taylor also argued that his sentence of seven years imprisonment was excessive and that a minimum term should not have been imposed. The Court found that the sentence was excessive due to the total uplift being disproportionate to the starting point, and substituted a sentence of five and a half years imprisonment with a minimum term of non-parole of two years and nine months. The appeal against sentence was allowed, while the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders