The Queen v Jones - [2007] NZCA 187

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA325/06
[2007] NZCA 187
THE QUEEN
v
MATHEW TUHURA JONES
Hearing:26 February 2007

Court:Hammond, Chambers and Arnold JJ
Counsel:C J Tennet for Appellant

K B F Hastie for Crown

Judgment:9 May 2007 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        An extension of time for appealing is granted.
B        The appeal is dismissed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Chambers J)
Possession of methampethamine for supply
[1]       Mathew Jones, the appellant, was found guilty on two charges:
(a)Having in his possession a class A controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, for the purpose of supply; and
(b)Having in his possession two pipes for the purpose of consuming methamphetamine.

[2]       Williams J, the trial judge, subsequently sentenced Mr Jones to a total effective sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment.
[3]       Mr Jones now appeals against his convictions. His appeal was filed out of time. An explanation for the delay has been given. Ms Hastie, for the Crown, advised the Crown did not oppose Mr Jones being granted an extension of time in which to appeal. We are satisfied that the delay has been adequately explained and accordingly an extension of time for appealing is granted.
Issues on the appeal
[4]       Mr Tennet, who was not Mr Jones’s trial counsel, advanced no fewer than eight grounds of appeal. Five of them relate to both counts. The sixth relates to count 1 (possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply). The final two relate only to count 2 (possession of the pipes).
[5]       The first issue is whether certain evidence was wrongly admitted. Under this head, Mr Tennet originally challenged the evidence of Ashleigh Meyn, Robert Moore, and Wayne Beattie. After discussion with the bench, Mr Tennet dropped the challenge to the evidence of Mr Meyn and Detective Constable Moore and maintained the challenge only in part to the evidence of Detective Beattie.
[6]       The second issue is whether the prosecutor’s final address to the jury gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.
[7]       The third issue is whether the judge misdirected on inferences.
[8]       The fourth issue is whether the judge misdirected on the burden of proof.
[9]       The fifth issue is whether the summing up was defective in not containing what Mr Tennet called the standard tripartite direction.
[10]     The sixth issue, which related only to count 1, was whether the judge misdirected on the question of what knowledge Mr Jones had to have of the contents of the container in which the drug was found.
[11]     The seventh issue, which related only to count 2, was whether the summing up was defective in the instruction given on “purpose”.
[12]     The final issue, which again arose only in respect of count 2, was whether the verdict should be set aside on the ground that it was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence.
[13]     We shall deal with the issues in that order.
Was some of Detective Beattie’s evidence…

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 The Queen v Jones

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Jones [2007] NZCA 187
Case: [2007] NZCA 187
Decision Date: 9 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mathew Jones appeals against his conviction for possession of methamphetamine for supply and possession of pipes for consuming methamphetamine. The appeal was filed out of time. The court granted an extension of time for appealing, as the delay was adequately explained. The appeal raised numerous issues, including the admissibility of certain evidence, the prosecutor's final address to the jury, the judge's direction on inferences, the burden of proof, and the summing up on purpose. The court found that the evidence of Detective Beattie, who was the officer in charge of the prosecution, was admissible as expert evidence. The prosecutor's final address to the jury did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice, nor did the judge misdirect on inferences or the burden of proof. The summing up on purpose was correct and adequate. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict on count 2, and the verdict on count 1 was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial judge made no errors. The court commented on the poor presentation of the appeal by Jones's counsel, as nearly all the points raised had little merit.

Orders