Trewavas v The King - [2023] NZHC 3533

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2023-442-000019

[2023] NZHC 3533

BETWEEN
HAYDEN GEOFFREY TREWAVAS

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 29 November 2023

Appearances:

C H Macklin for Appellant

A R Goodson for Respondent

Judgment:

5 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF JOHNSTONE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 December 2023 at 4.05 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Nelson

TREWAVAS v R [2023] NZHC 3533 [5 December 2023]

[1] Hayden Trewavas met a 15-year-old at a mutual friend’s party in June 2021. Knowing her as a local schoolgirl and (from her Facebook profile) that she was under 18, Mr Trewavas commenced to sell her cannabis “every second day”1 from June 2021 until January 2022, leaving it in his letterbox for collection in return for either $20 or
$50.

[2] In January 2022, she visited Mr Trewavas’ home to buy cannabis. They had a spa and shared a joint. She said she needed to leave. They went to his bedroom where he kept his cannabis. He digitally and orally penetrated her genitalia before they engaged in full sexual intercourse. He gave her a bag of cannabis and she left.

[3] When police executed a search warrant at Mr Trewavas’ home in June 2022, they found around 191 grams of cannabis head in one container, 154 grams of cannabis stalk in another, and 41 grams of cannabis plant packaged into snap lock bags.

[4] Mr Trewavas pleaded guilty to charges of supplying cannabis to a young person,2 sexual connection with a young person (x 3),3 and possession of cannabis for sale.4 On 10 October 2023, Mr Trewavas was sentenced in the Nelson District Court to a total of 32 months’ imprisonment.5 He appeals to this Court against that sentence.

[5] I am required to allow Mr Trewavas’ appeal if satisfied that there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed. Otherwise, I must dismiss the appeal.6 In most sentence appeals brought by a defendant, the appeal court will not intervene unless the sentence is manifestly excessive. Whether the sentence is manifestly excessive is to be assessed in terms of the final sentence imposed, rather than the process by which it was reached. 7

[6] Mr Trewavas’ argument is that his sentence is manifestly excessive because the overall starting point for the offending was too high, the discount for personal

1      According to his statement to police.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(d). Maximum penalty: eight years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 134 (1). Maximum penalty:10 years’ imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(f). Maximum penalty: eight years’ imprisonment.
5      R v Trewavas [2023] NZDC 22573.
6      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.
7      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279

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 Trewavas v The King

Details

AGLC: Trewavas v The King [2023] NZHC 3533
Case: [2023] NZHC 3533
Decision Date: 5 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hayden Geoffrey Trewavas appeals against his sentence imposed by the Nelson District Court for supplying cannabis to a minor, and for having sexual connection with the same minor. The appeal is dismissed. Mr Trewavas supplied the minor with cannabis over a period of seven months, knowing her age and that she was a local schoolgirl. He engaged in sexual connection with her on one occasion, having provided her with cannabis. The Nelson District Court sentenced Mr Trewavas to a total of 32 months’ imprisonment. Mr Trewavas submits that his sentence is manifestly excessive. The Court must decide if there was an error in the sentence such that a different sentence should be imposed. The Court finds the starting point and discount applied in the sentencing process to be appropriate. The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders