Wallace v The Queen

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard the appeals of Sandra Wallace and Vana Lee Downs against their convictions and sentences for drug trafficking offences. Sandra Wallace appealed her conviction for possession of methamphetamine for supply and her sentence. Vana Lee Downs appealed her sentence only. The appeals followed their convictions for their involvement in the importation of methamphetamine from Thailand to New Zealand in 2011. Sandra Wallace was convicted of importing the drugs and possessing them for supply, while Vana Lee Downs was convicted solely of possessing the drugs for supply. The appeals raised issues concerning the application of statutory presumptions, the adequacy of directions to the jury, and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed.

The court first considered Sandra Wallace's appeal against her conviction for possession for supply, focusing on whether the trial judge correctly applied the statutory presumption that possession of five grams or more of methamphetamine is presumed to be for the purposes of supply. The court noted that the quantity of methamphetamine in its pure form in the package was less than five grams at the time Sandra Wallace was alleged to have had possession, which would have potentially negated the presumption. However, the court found that the appeal was not well-founded as the defence did not challenge the quantity of drugs in its submissions, and the jury's verdict indicated they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Sandra Wallace was involved in the drug supply, regardless of the quantity issue.

Next, the court examined the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury concerning party liability in relation to the possession for supply charge. Counsel for Sandra Wallace argued that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the concept of party liability under the Crimes Act 1961. The court found the jury directions confusing and incorrect but concluded that there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice as the jury's verdict indicated they found Sandra Wallace guilty based on questions one and two of the question trail, which did not require consideration of party liability.

The court then turned to the sentencing appeals. Sandra Wallace argued that her sentence should have been reduced to account for mitigating factors such as her improved personal circumstances, concessions made during the trial, and the lengthy period between the charges and the trial. The court found that the judge appropriately considered these factors and concluded that no discount was warranted. Regarding Vana Lee Downs' sentence appeal, the court found that the starting point for her sentence was too high, given her significantly lesser role in the offending compared to Sandra Wallace. The court accepted that Vana Lee Downs acted as a "catcher" at the direction of Sandra Wallace and her partner, with no evidence of her profiting from her involvement. The court substituted a sentence of three years and two months’ imprisonment for Vana Lee Downs, finding her original four-year sentence manifestly excessive.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed Sandra Wallace's appeal against conviction and sentence but allowed Vana Lee Downs' appeal against her sentence. The court substituted a sentence of three years and two months’ imprisonment for Vana Lee Downs while upholding Sandra Wallace's seven-year sentence.