The Queen v Jason Douglas Wheatley - [2002] NZCA 183

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA3/02

THE QUEEN

JASON DOUGLAS WHEATLEY

Hearing:	22 July 2002
Coram:	Anderson J Williams J Paterson J
Appearances:	T Sutcliffe for Appellant H D Lawry for Crown
Judgment:	30 July 2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY WILLIAMS J

Issues

On 12 December 2001 the appellant, Mr Wheatley, was convicted by a jury in the Hamilton District Court on one charge of cultivating cannabis plant and one count of possessing equipment - namely growing lights, extractor fans and a watering system - capable of being used for cultivating cannabis. In view of those verdicts, the jury was not asked to decide on an alternative count of permitting premises at 27 Havelock Road, Ngaruawahia to be used for the purpose of cannabis cultivation. This judgment deals with Mr Wheatley’s appeal against the two convictions on the grounds that the verdict should be set aside because they were unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence (Crimes Act 1961 s 385(1)(a)).
On 20 December 2001 Mr Wheatley was sentenced to four years imprisonment on each of the counts on which he had been convicted. On 15 March 2002 he abandoned his appeal against sentence.

Facts

Mr Wheatley became the tenant of the property at 27 Havelock Road, Ngaruawahia in June 2000 at a rental of $105 per week. His tenancy remained in force until late December that year, some time after the police executed a search warrant on the premises on 17 December which led to the laying of the charges. The premises consisted of a small house on a large section. The landlord said that he was aware that there was also a bus on the section which belonged to Mr Wheatley. The landlord initially said that he last saw Mr Wheatley at the property in about October 2000 but later accepted that he may have been inaccurate in that estimate and last saw Mr Wheatley at the property in about August.
Mr Wheatley arranged for the electricity account for 27 Havelock Road to be connected in his name as from 13 July 2000. It remained in his name until 3 February 2001. It seems that after paying an account for $81.79 for the period up to 1 August 2000, Mr Wheatley’s automatic payments were dishonoured for the balance of the period though the electricity company took no step to discontinue supply.
When the police executed the search warrant they found a reasonably sophisticated cannabis-growing operation set up in the bus. The cavity of the bus had polythene sheeting taped to it, black on the outside and white on the inside for reflection. The equipment included fluorescent lights, fans, extractors and a watering system. There were 143 female cannabis plants estimated at eight to ten weeks old growing in polythene bags. Documents were found in the bus in Mr Wheatley’s name, though some years old. Fingerprinting found one print of Mr Wheatley’s left forefinger on the tape used to secure…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The Queen v Jason Douglas Wheatley and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NZCA 183
Decision Date: 30 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand dealt with an appeal against the conviction of Jason Douglas Wheatley for cultivating a cannabis plant and possessing equipment used for cultivating cannabis. The appeal was heard on 22 July 2002, and the judgment was delivered on 30 July 2002. The legal issues in the case revolved around whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, which would warrant setting aside the convictions under section 385(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961. The facts of the case revealed that Mr Wheatley rented a property in Ngaruawahia where a sophisticated cannabis-growing operation was discovered in a bus parked on the property. The police found evidence linking Mr Wheatley to the property and the cannabis operation, including documents, a fingerprint, and a concessional rental agreement with a sub-tenant. However, the defence argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove Mr Wheatley's involvement beyond reasonable doubt, especially considering the absence of certain equipment typically used in cannabis cultivation and the potential involvement of the sub-tenants in the operation.

The Court of Appeal considered the submissions from both sides and concluded that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to reasonably infer Mr Wheatley's involvement in cultivating the cannabis plant and possessing the equipment. The court noted that while there might have been room for suspicion regarding the sub-tenants' involvement, the jury could still deduce Mr Wheatley's guilt based on the evidence presented. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the original verdicts were upheld.

Orders