The Queen v Sidwell - [2009] NZCA 385

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA55/2009
[2009] NZCA 385
THE QUEEN
v
KERRY MICHAEL SIDWELL
Hearing:23 June 2009

Court:Baragwanath, Randerson and Miller JJ
Counsel:Appellant in person

K A L Bicknell for Crown

Judgment:2 September 2009 at 9.30am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ARE DISMISSED.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Miller J)
Table of Contents

Para No

INTRODUCTION  [1]
THE TRIAL  [2]
THE APPEAL  [7]
EVENTS OF 5 OCTOBER 2007  [10]
THE TIMELINES AND THE INTERPRETATION OF INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS        [20]
THE SCALES  [24]
THE TICK LIST  [26]
The snaplock bags  [28]
The cash  [30]
Crown case “manufactured”  [32]
The search warrants  [33]
TRIAL UNFAIRNESS  [40]
JURY DELIBERATIONS  [44]
The conviction appeal: conclusions  [45]
The sentence appeal  [46]
Decision  [52]
Introduction
[1]       Mr Sidwell appeals against his conviction on one charge of supplying methamphetamine and the sentence of four years’ imprisonment imposed by Dobson J. An appeal against conviction on five charges of selling cannabis was abandoned belatedly in reply submissions filed after the hearing.
The trial
[2]       The Crown case was that Mr Sidwell was one of six men involved in a series of conspiracies to supply methamphetamine between January 2007 and the termination of a police monitoring operation in October of that year. Relying on calls and texts obtained under interception warrants, the Crown alleged that one of the co-accused, Barker, was procuring methamphetamine and supplying it to others, including Mr Sidwell, who retailed it. All six men were convicted on various charges.
[3]       Mr Sidwell’s conviction for supplying methamphetamine rested upon events of 5 October 2007. It was said that Barker obtained a quantity of methamphetamine at 11 am that day and supplied part of it to Mr Sidwell when the men met at 6.18 pm. Mr Sidwell’s communications showed he had been holding his customers at bay in the preceding days, but on meeting Barker he began a flurry of texts and meetings with them that lasted for much of the night. When he was arrested some days later he was found to have: $1,100 in cash, although he claims to live hand to mouth; a list that the Crown says is a dealer’s tick list; electronic scales bearing traces of methamphetamine; and a number of small ziplock bags.
[4]       The trial began on 28 October and took longer than estimated, with the Judge summing up on 17 November. At the beginning of the trial Mr Sidwell chose to represent himself despite the Judge’s urging that he retain his counsel, Mr Riddoch. Having regard to the nature of the charges and complexity of the trial, Dobson J appointed Mr Riddoch as amicus, and he addressed the jury in closing on Mr Sidwell’s behalf.
[5]       Mr Sidwell gave evidence. He denied dealing in methamphetamine or cannabis, maintaining that there were innocent explanations for his many dealings with the co-offenders and others. He had acquired the scales innocently, there was no tick list and the ziplock bags were larger than…

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 Sidwell

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Sidwell [2009] NZCA 385
Case: [2009] NZCA 385
Decision Date: 2 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Sidwell, the defendant, Kerry Michael Sidwell, appealed against his conviction on one charge of supplying methamphetamine and the sentence of four years’ imprisonment imposed by the Judge. The Crown case alleged that Sidwell was involved in a series of conspiracies to supply methamphetamine between January 2007 and October 2007. The conviction rested on events of 5 October 2007, where it was said that Sidwell met with Barker, who supplied him with methamphetamine. Sidwell denied dealing in methamphetamine or cannabis, maintaining that there were innocent explanations for his dealings with the co-offenders and others. The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals. The Court found that Sidwell was not taken by surprise by the Crown's focus on the 6.18 pm meeting with Barker, as the evidence about the meeting was disclosed before the trial. The Court also found that there was no material inaccuracy in the timelines and transcripts of voice communications, and that the evidence was capable of supporting the inference that Sidwell was supplying drugs to customers. The Court concluded that the Crown case relied on telecommunications evidence, sightings, physical evidence, and Sidwell's own admissions, which together point to the conclusion that the verdicts are well founded. As for the sentence, the Court found that the starting points chosen by the Judge were orthodox, and the allowance for totality appropriate.

Orders