The Queen v Jury - [2009] NZCA 116

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA650/2008
CA699/2008
[2009] NZCA 116
THE QUEEN
v
TRACEY ROBIN JURY
Hearing:31 March 2009

Court:Robertson, Gendall and Keane JJ
Counsel:A G Speed for the Appellant

M A Woolford for the Crown

Judgment:6 April 2009 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Gendall J)
Introduction
[1] The appellant was convicted of possession of the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine for the purpose of supply and was sentenced to three years imprisonment. She appeals against her conviction.
Evidential background
[2] The Police undertook a search of the dwelling occupied by the appellant and located in a bedroom 27.2 grams of methamphetamine and $1,020 in cash, mostly in $50 notes. They also located in the house two methamphetamine pipes, electronic scales and “point” bags which contained remnants of a crystalline substance. Personal items of the appellant were located in the bedroom, which included clothes, cosmetics and other articles. She told Police Officers at the scene that she used the room not as a bedroom but:
… basically just a wardrobe with my clothes in it.

[3]       She said to the Police that no-one else used the room as a bedroom. She said the money was hers, but explained that some of the cash had been given to her by her son to buy presents for his daughter.
[4]       Defence counsel conducted their case on the basis that the drugs and drug related items at the house were owned by associates of the Headhunters gang (the appellant’s partner being a member of that gang) and that the Crown could not establish that she was in possession of the methamphetamine found together with her belongings in the bedroom.
[5]       The appellant did not give evidence at the trial, but there was evidence that a number of people associated with the gang were connected with the address. The defence case was that the Crown had not excluded the possibility that she knew nothing of the methamphetamine, as she stated to the Police Officers.
Appellant’s contentions
[6]       Mr Speed contended that Crown counsel in her closing address unfairly alleged that the presence of cash indicated that the appellant had been involved in selling drugs. That comment was referred to by Cooper J in his summing up as follows:
The money that was found in the drawer was alongside a female watch, lip balm, a hairbrush. Then she invited you to note that the accused accepted that all the money was hers and she submitted that possession of that money was an indication that she may have been dealing in drugs. She invited you to consider the location of the money that was found …

[7] Mr Speed’s submission was that the Crown Prosecutor in fact had said that the presence of money equals someone selling drugs and that this was unfair, inappropriate and prejudicial, and not supported by the evidence. Mr Speed argued that the Prosecutor had not…

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 Jury

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Jury [2009] NZCA 116
Case: [2009] NZCA 116
Decision Date: 6 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Tracey Robin Jury, was convicted by the High Court of possessing 27.2 grams of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply, and was sentenced to three years imprisonment. She appealed against her conviction, contending that the Crown Prosecutor's comments during the trial unfairly suggested that the presence of cash indicated drug dealing, and that the trial Judge's directions to the jury regarding possession were inadequate. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Crown Prosecutor's comments were not prejudicial and that the trial Judge's directions were adequate in the circumstances. The Court found that the appellant's claim that she did not know about the methamphetamine was refuted by the evidence of the quantity of the drug, the cash, and other drug-related items found in the room she used as a wardrobe. The Court held that the jury could not have been left in any doubt as to what was required to be proved in the circumstances of the case, and that the verdict was safe.
The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Crown Prosecutor's comments during the trial unfairly suggested that the presence of cash indicated drug dealing, and whether the trial Judge's directions to the jury regarding possession were inadequate. The Court found that the Crown Prosecutor's comments were not prejudicial and that the trial Judge's directions were adequate in the circumstances. The Court held that the Crown Prosecutor's comments were relevant to the issue of possession and the inference that could be drawn from the presence of a large amount of cash and other drug-related items. The Court found that the trial Judge's directions to the jury were clear and concise, and that the jury could not have been left in any doubt as to what was required to be proved in the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the jury's verdict was safe and that there was no basis to conclude that it was unsafe.

Orders