Legal Research
Cases
Taylor v The King

Taylor v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 3524 22 November 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF DETAILS OF THE APELLANT’S PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS PROHIBITED BY S 199A OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2024-485-000067

[2024] NZHC 3524

BETWEEN
ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 20 November 2024

Counsel:

J J Rhodes for Appellant

C A Brook and D Lye for Respondent

Judgment:

22 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF RADICH J

[1] On 30 August 2024, having pleaded guilty, Arthur William Taylor was sentenced by Judge Mika to two and a half years’ imprisonment on seven charges of:1

(a)using a forged document;2

(b)supply of a Class B controlled drug (GBL);3

(c)conspiracy to supply a Class A controlled drug (methamphetamine);4

1      R v Taylor [2024] NZDC 22826 [Decision on appeal].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 257(1)(b) (maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment).
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and (2)(b) (maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment).
4      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(2A)(a) (maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment).

TAYLOR v R [2024] NZHC 3524 [22 November 2024]

(d)possession of a Class A controlled drug for supply (methamphetamine);5

(e)offering to supply a Class B controlled drug (GBL);6

(f)possession of a Class A controlled drug (methamphetamine);7 and

(g)breach of release conditions.8

[2] Mr Taylor appeals from the sentencing decision. He says that the starting points and uplifts adopted by the Judge were manifestly excessive. And he says that a further discount should have been applied for the time he spent in custody after being recalled by the Parole Board and for the period during which he was subject to electronic monitoring conditions.

The offending

[3] While the country was in Level 4 lockdown as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a person who used the name “Susannah Fong” emailed a vehicle rental company in Auckland inquiring about renting a vehicle for Mr Taylor, who claimed to be an essential worker.9

[4] At 11 am on 19 April 2020, Mr Taylor arrived at the car rental company to collect the vehicle. He was on parole at the time. He presented his driver’s licence and two letters to the owner of the company purporting to support his essential worker status. In one of the letters it was said that Mr Taylor was working for a law firm, and that both the firm and Mr Taylor were authorised to work and travel during the lockdown.10

5      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(f) and (2)(a) (maximum penalty of life imprisonment).
6      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(c) and (2)(b) (maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment) (representative).
7      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 7(1)(a) and (2)(a) (maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or
$1,000 fine or both).
8      Parole Act 2002, s 71 (maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment or $2,000 fine).
9      Decision on appeal, above n 1, at [4]–[5].
10 At [6].

[5] The letters were forged.11 Mr Taylor was to have returned the rented vehicle on 21…

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 [2024] NZHC 3524
Case: [2024] NZHC 3524
Decision Date: 22 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Arthur William Taylor appeals against his two-and-a-half-year imprisonment sentence, imposed by Judge Mika, on seven charges including using a forged document, drug supply, conspiracy to supply a controlled drug, and breach of parole conditions. The central issues were whether the starting points and uplifts adopted by the Judge were manifestly excessive, and if a further discount should have been applied for time spent in custody and on electronic monitoring conditions. The Court considered the nature of the drug charges, the forgery, and the breach of release conditions, along with mitigating factors and previous convictions. The High Court found the starting point for the drug charges to be manifestly excessive, resulting in a reduced starting point of three and a half years. The eight-month uplift for the forgery charge was upheld, but a two-month discount was applied for time spent in custody on recall, avoiding double punishment. The Crown's argument for a further discount for time on electronic monitoring conditions was rejected. The final sentence was substituted to 26 months' imprisonment, reflecting a corrected starting point and adjusted personal factors.

Orders