The Queen v Williams - [2008] NZCA 383

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA313/2008
[2008] NZCA 383
THE QUEEN
v
JACLYN CHERIE WILLIAMS
Hearing:18 September 2008

Court:Robertson, Wild and Cooper JJ
Counsel:P T R Heaslip for Appellant

S B Edwards for Crown

Judgment:23 September 2008 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE IS DISMISSED.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Robertson J)
Introduction
[1]        This is an appeal against a sentence of three years’ imprisonment imposed on Ms Williams after she pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiring to supply methamphetamine.
[2]        The sole ground of appeal is that the Judge erred in declining to impose home detention which, it is submitted, involved an incorrect application of the decision of this Court in R v Hill [2008] NZCA 41. It is further contended that, in the exercise of his discretion, the Judge failed to take into account relevant considerations and took into account irrelevant ones.
[3]        At sentencing, Lang J described the factual situation as follows:
[2]       . . . In September 2006 the police began to receive information that two persons were selling methamphetamine from certain premises in Papatoetoe. They then instigated an operation, known as Operation domino, in which they began to keep the premises under surveillance.
[3]       In May 2007 they applied for, and obtained, an interception warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. This enabled the police to intercept telephone and other conversations between the people they believed to be at the centre of this drug distribution network. Then, in June 2007, a further inception warrant was issued by this Court in respect of other persons who had been identified as being involved in the network.
[4]       The police then intercepted a vast number of telephone calls and text messages. Some of these, Ms Williams, were text messages and telephone calls in which you were one of the parties to the communication. These showed that you were a close associate of one of the principal distributors in the network. It also showed that between May and June 2007 you sourced large quantities of methamphetamine from that person and you then on-sold that methamphetamine.
[5]       The summary of facts records that between 11 May 2007 and 26 June 2007 there were no fewer than 591 telephone calls or text messages between you and the distributor. Of these, the summary records that 157 related directly to the supply of methamphetamine. The telephone calls and text messages also revealed that you generally obtained between two and four grams of methamphetamine as a result of each contact with the distributor. You would obtain the drugs on an “as required” basis, and the summary states that you often “reloaded” several times a day.
[6]       The police terminated their operation on 28 June 2007. On the morning of that day they went to your residential address in Otara. They searched the address pursuant to a warrant that had been issued under s 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1976.

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 Williams

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Williams [2008] NZCA 383
Case: [2008] NZCA 383
Decision Date: 23 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Williams, the defendant appealed against her sentence of three years' imprisonment for conspiring to supply methamphetamine. The sole ground of appeal was that the sentencing judge had erred in declining to impose home detention, arguing that this decision involved an incorrect application of the Court's decision in R v Hill. The appellant further contended that the judge failed to take into account relevant considerations and took into account irrelevant ones when exercising his discretion.

The Court of Appeal examined the legal issues regarding the application of home detention in cases of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine. The court noted that while conspiracy is not within the category mandating imprisonment, the underlying philosophy of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 does not preclude its application to a charge of conspiracy, especially in cases where the offender admits to selling large quantities of the drug. The court also considered the relevance of deterrence and denunciation in cases of this kind.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had appropriately exercised his discretion, taking into account the seriousness, scale, and commercial nature of the offending. The judge had concluded that a full-time custodial sentence was necessary, and the sentence imposed reflected the appellant's circumstances. The court agreed with the judge's analysis and dismissed the appeal against sentence.

Therefore, the appeal against sentence is dismissed, and the original sentence of three years' imprisonment stands.

Orders