Te Kira v The Queen - [2014] NZCA 75

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA568/2012
[2014] NZCA 75

BETWEEN	JOHN TE KIRA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	10 March 2014
Court:	Wild, Goddard and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in Person J E Mildenhall for Respondent
Judgment:	19 March 2014 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AAn extension of time in which to appeal the conviction and sentence is granted.
BThe appeals against both conviction and sentence are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Goddard J)

Introduction

This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant was convicted at trial on one count of possession of methamphetamine for supply. He was sentenced in the Invercargill District Court on 9 August 2012 on that charge, as well as on three charges of possession of cannabis for sale, to which he had pleaded guilty. Two of those cannabis charges related to offending on 27 May 2011 and 3 August 2011 to which the appellant had earlier pleaded guilty.[1] The third cannabis charge related to broadly the same period in which the appellant was found to be in possession of methamphetamine for supply, namely 18 March to 30 April 2011.
[1]R v Te Kira DC Invercargill CRI-2011-025-1542, 9 August 2012 [Sentencing Notes].
Judge Phillips imposed a total sentence of three years three months’ imprisonment, comprising two years for the methamphetamine offending and a cumulative 15 months on the cannabis charges.
Mr Te Kira has appealed both his conviction for possession of methamphetamine for supply and his overall sentence on all charges. In relation to his appeal against sentence, he contends that he received insufficient discount for his guilty pleas to the cannabis offending and should have been separately sentenced for the May and August 2011 offending at the time he entered his guilty pleas to those charges.
Mr Te Kira was represented by counsel at his trial but appeared on his own behalf at the appeal hearing.

Background facts

Methamphetamine offending

Mr Te Kira went to trial on an indictment containing four counts alleging possession of cannabis for supply, codeine for supply, dihydrocodeine for supply and methamphetamine for supply. As noted, the period specified in the indictment spanned 18 March to 30 April 2011.
Police obtained a warrant for the appellant’s cell phone records and intercepted coded text conversations during the period under indictment indicating that he had been in possession of methamphetamine, codeine and dihydrocodeine and cannabis for supply or sale.
During a subsequent police interview the appellant admitted having discussed cannabis by text message but denied that any of the texts intercepted by police referred to methamphetamine. At trial Detective Boucher gave evidence interpreting one of the text messages as referring to methamphetamine. It is clear from the jury’s verdict that they accepted Detective Boucher’s experience and his expertise in the accurate decoding of this text message.
Mr Te Kira did not give evidence at his trial but one of the persons with whom he had exchanged text messages gave evidence for…

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 Te Kira v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Te Kira v The Queen [2014] NZCA 75
Case: [2014] NZCA 75
Decision Date: 19 March 2014 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal case of Te Kira v The Queen, the appellant, John Te Kira, appealed both his conviction and sentence, which were imposed by the Invercargill District Court on charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply, and possession of cannabis for sale. The central issues in this appeal were whether the jury's conviction was unreasonable and whether the sentence was appropriate given the appellant's early guilty pleas to the cannabis charges. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the text message evidence provided a sufficient basis for the jury's conviction and whether the sentence adequately reflected the discount for the appellant's guilty pleas.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence and the jury's verdict, noting that the threshold for overturning a guilty verdict on the basis of unreasonableness is high. The Court concluded that the jury's acceptance of the text message interpretation provided by Detective Boucher was reasonable, given the advantages the jury had in assessing the evidence as a whole. The Court also considered the appellant's argument regarding insufficient credit for his early guilty pleas to the cannabis charges. After examining the sentencing notes and the overall history of the appellant's offending, the Court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The Court granted an extension of time for the appeal against conviction and sentence due to the short delay in filing the appeal against conviction and the appellant's unrepresented status when filing the appeal against sentence. However, the appeals against both conviction and sentence were ultimately dismissed.

Orders