Vesey v Police - [2016] NZHC 557

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2016-488-000003 [2016] NZHC 557

BETWEEN
GRAEME DAVID VESEY

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 21 March 2016

Appearances:

Applicant in Person (assisted by Caroline Hohaia as a
McKenzie Friend)
Richard Annandale for the Respondent

Judgment:

4 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J [Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 April 2016 at 4:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Date:

VESEY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 557 [4 April 2016]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Graeme David Vesey, appeals against his sentence of three years and two months’ imprisonment, imposed following the entry of a plea of guilty to one representative charge of supplying the class A controlled drug methamphetamine.1

[2] Mr Vesey makes three complaints. First, he says that the Judge’s assessment of the quantity of drugs was speculative. Secondly, he says that the Judge’s classification of his offending in terms of the bands set out in R v Fatu2 was wrong and thirdly, he says he should have received the full 25 per cent discount for his guilty plea.

Factual background

[3] The summary of facts reveals that in December 2015 the Police became aware that Mr Vesey was selling methamphetamine in the Far North. An investigation was launched and a search warrant was executed at his home address in Kohukohu. A sum of cash totalling $4,590 was located along with a number of cellphones.

[4] Data from Mr Vesey’s cellphone was retrieved for the three month period between 1 December 2014 and 1 February 2015. An examination of data from the telephone revealed more than 2,000 text messages had been sent or received over this period. On analysis these revealed Mr Vesey was in contact with at least eight customers. The telephone analysis revealed that Mr Vesey regularly sent text messages to customers asking if they wanted to buy methamphetamine. On 20 separate occasions he made unsolicited offers to sell methamphetamine. On other occasions customers made enquiries of him.

[5] It is unclear exactly how much methamphetamine was actually supplied. Some of the text messages referred to grams, half grams or quarter grams being

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c).
2 R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72.

available for sale. Other messages referred to $100 bags and $200 bags. Some text messages made no reference to specific amounts at all.

District Court decision

[6] Judge Hunt, sitting in the District Court at Kaitaia, noted the Crown’s concession that Mr Vesey was a low level street dealer. This conclusion was drawn from observations that Mr Vesey appeared to have a limited pool of customers, was someone who made drugs available to others and appeared to act as a middle man.

[7] Mr Vesey’s then counsel urged the Judge to exercise caution when determining the actual amount of drugs supplied by him. Counsel submitted that on the basis of the text messages it…

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 Vesey v Police

Details

AGLC: Vesey v Police [2016] NZHC 557
Case: [2016] NZHC 557
Decision Date: 4 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Graeme David Vesey appeals against his three years and two months' imprisonment sentence, imposed after pleading guilty to supplying the class A controlled drug methamphetamine. Vesey claims the Judge's assessment of the drug quantity was speculative, his classification of the offending was incorrect, and he should have received a 25 per cent discount for his guilty plea. The District Court found Vesey to be a low-level street dealer and adopted a starting point of four years' imprisonment, considering the evidence suggested Vesey was willing and able to supply larger volumes of methamphetamine. The Judge also rejected the submission that Vesey's offending was driven by addiction and instead attributed it to a combination of factors, including Christmas, visitors, alcohol, and bravado. The Judge imposed a sentence of three years and two months' imprisonment after giving Vesey a 20 per cent discount for his early guilty plea.

The High Court found that the four-year starting point adopted by the Judge was within the range available to him, as the totality of the offending indicated Vesey supplied a considerably greater amount of methamphetamine. The court agreed with the Judge's assessment of culpability and classification of the offending in terms of Fatu. The court also found that the 20 per cent discount for Vesey's early guilty plea was appropriate, given the strength of the Crown case against him.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of three years and two months' imprisonment remained in place.

Orders