Trower v Police - [2023] NZHC 3454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2023-463-000060

[2023] NZHC 3454

BETWEEN
JAYDEN TROWER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 14 September, 28 November 2023

Appearances:

M Simpkins for the Appellant G Banuelos for the Respondent

Judgment:

30 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF HARVEY

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment is delivered by me on 30 November 2023 at 2.30 pm.

.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Gordon Pilditch, Crown Solicitor, Rotorua Simpkins Legal, Rotorua

TROWER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 3454 [30 November 2023]

Introduction

[1] Jayden Trower pleaded guilty to three sets of charges concerning, in broad terms, drugs, firearms and driving offences. On 2 June 2023, Judge J P Geoghegan sentenced Mr Trower to two years, four months’ imprisonment on all charges.1

[2] Mr Trower appeals against that sentence on the basis that the Judge gave insufficient weight to mitigating factors. He says the level of discount that should have been given for these would have reduced the end sentence to one of two years’ imprisonment or less. Had that occurred, it would have been open, and appropriate, for the Judge to have sentenced him to home detention. He therefore contends the sentence of imprisonment that the Judge imposed is manifestly excessive.

The charges

The drugs and firearms charges

[3] The most serious charges were those arising out of a series of events that began when the Police searched Mr Trower after he had been arrested and placed in custody. They subsequently executed a search warrant at his residential address.

[4] When the police searched Mr Trower, they found several bags containing a crystal-like residue. These were in a small container that also contained a crystal-like substance. Upon analysis, the substance in both the bags and the container was confirmed to be methamphetamine having a total weight of 1.1 grams. At the time of his arrest, Mr Trower was also carrying the sum of $4,050 in cash as well as ziplock bags and a set of scales. In addition, the police found a pipe of the type commonly used to consume methamphetamine and a plastic ziplock bag containing a small quantity of cocaine.

[5] When they found these items Police asked Mr Trower to provide the passcode for his cellphone. He refused to do so.

1 New Zealand Police v Trower [2023] NZDC 11307.

[6]When the police subsequently searched Mr Trower’s address they found

1.82 kilograms of cannabis in the bedroom. They also found a cut-down .22 calibre rifle and 21 rounds of .22 calibre ammunition under the mattress of the bed in that room. In addition, they found $3,730 in cash.

[7] This series of events gave rise to charges of being in possession of cannabis for supply and being in possession of cocaine, methamphetamine and a methamphetamine pipe. He was also charged with failing to provide the passcode for his cellphone. In addition, Mr Trower faced two charges of being in unlawful possession…

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 Trower v Police

Details

AGLC: Trower v Police [2023] NZHC 3454
Case: [2023] NZHC 3454
Decision Date: 30 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jayden Trower appeals against a sentence imposed by Judge Geoghegan, contending that the sentence is manifestly excessive due to insufficient weight given to mitigating factors. The appellant pleaded guilty to drug, firearms, and driving charges, resulting in a sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment. The appellant argues that the discount applied for mitigating factors such as guilty pleas, addiction issues, and rehabilitative prospects was inadequate, and that a lower sentence would have been appropriate, warranting a sentence of home detention instead. The court acknowledges that the appellant should have received a 25 per cent discount for his guilty pleas, but finds that the total sentence, even after applying this discount, was not manifestly excessive. The court also finds no error in the Judge's application of discounts for other mitigating factors and concludes that the appellant was not suitable for a sentence of home detention.

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders