Taylor v The King - [2025] NZCA 211

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA831/2024
[2025] NZCA 211

BETWEEN	ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	2 April 2025
Court:	Katz, Brewer and Gault JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person D Lye and K B Bell for Respondent
Judgment:	4 June 2025 at 9.30am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Brewer J)

Introduction

Mr Taylor was sentenced in the District Court to two years and six months’ imprisonment on a range of charges, including supply of Class A and Class B drugs, and use of a forged document.[1] He appealed his sentence to the High Court. His appeal was allowed and his sentence was reduced to two years and two months’ imprisonment.[2] Mr Taylor’s view is that the High Court should have given him a greater reduction. He seeks leave to bring a second appeal against his sentence. Mr Taylor represents himself.
[1]R v Taylor [2024] NZDC 22826.
[2]Taylor v R [2024] NZHC 3524.
The right of appeal against a determination of a first appeal is governed by s 253 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Leave is required and (in this case) must not be given unless we are satisfied that:[3]
(a)the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance; or
(b)a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, or may occur unless the appeal is heard.
[3]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 253(3).
We take the factual background from the Crown’s submissions:[4]
3.On 19 April 2020, during the Level 4 COVID-19 lockdown, the applicant rented a car by emailing the car rental office from another address claiming to be an essential worker, and then presenting two forged letters, one of which claimed he was working for a law firm and was authorised to travel during the lockdown. He was charged with using a forged document.[5]
4.The applicant also faced a range of drugs charges.[6] These arose out of a Police operation in relation to the supply of controlled drugs in the Hawke’s Bay region between November 2019 and May 2020. Intercepted communications and later analysis of the applicant’s cell phone revealed that he had been supplying GBL, conspiring to supply methamphetamine, and possessing methamphetamine for supply. The methamphetamine offending involved a total of 14 grams; eight grams on the possession for supply charge and six grams on the conspiring to supply charge. The GBL offending involved 2.005 litres offering to supply, 200 millilitres actual supply, and a further three unspecified amounts of offer to supply. Due to this offending, he was also charged with breaching his release conditions.[7]

Mr Taylor’s submissions

[4]Footnotes in original.

[5]Crimes Act 1961, s 257(1)(b). Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

[6]All under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975: supply of GBL (s 6(1)(c) and (2)(b)); conspiracy to supply methamphetamine (s 6(2A)(a)); possession of methamphetamine for supply (s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a)); and offering to supply GBL…

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Taylor v The King [2025] NZCA 211
Case: [2025] NZCA 211
Decision Date: 4 June 2025 at 9.30am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Mr Arthur William Taylor sought leave to bring a second appeal against his sentence. Mr Taylor was initially sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment on multiple charges, including drug supply and use of a forged document. The High Court allowed his appeal and reduced the sentence to two years and two months' imprisonment, a decision Mr Taylor believed was insufficient. Mr Taylor contended that the appeal involved a matter of general or public importance and that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

The legal issues before the court were whether Mr Taylor's proposed appeal involved a matter of general or public importance or if a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The court had to determine if the High Court judge had made any errors in the consideration of the District Court's sentencing calculation or if there were any unaddressed issues that could lead to a miscarriage of justice. The court also had to consider Mr Taylor's argument about duplicitous charges, which was not raised in the lower courts.

The court declined Mr Taylor's application for leave to bring a second appeal. It found that Mr Taylor's proposed appeal did not involve a matter of general or public importance and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. The court noted that the High Court judge did not make any errors in considering the District Court's sentencing calculation and that Mr Taylor's argument about duplicitous charges was without merit as the acts were sufficiently different to warrant separate charges. Therefore, the application for leave to bring a second appeal was declined.

Orders