Ward v Police - [2022] NZHC 1051

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-409-162

[2022] NZHC 1051

BETWEEN
TIM AIDEN WARD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 12 May 2022

Appearances:

A J Bailey for Appellant L Fiennes for Respondent

Judgment:

13 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 May 2022 at 3.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

WARD v POLICE [2022] NZHC 1051 [13 May 2022]

[1] Mr Tim Ward pleaded guilty to two charges laid pursuant to the Arms Act 1983. The first was an allegation that he, together with two other persons, was unlawfully in possession of three shotguns and a .22 rifle. The second charge concerned his unlawful joint possession of ammunition. On these charges he was sentenced by Judge Crosbie in the Christchurch District Court to 27 months’ imprisonment. On charges of possessing methamphetamine and breaching his bail he was convicted and discharged.1 Mr Ward now appeals his sentence.

Factual background

[2] In the early hours of 2 December 2020, police searched a motor vehicle occupied by Mr Ward and two other persons. A number of 12-gauge shotgun rounds had been viewed in plain sight on the rear seat of the vehicle. A search of the vehicle located two cut-down 12-gauge shotguns under the front seats. A further cutdown 12- gauge shotgun was located on the rear passenger seat. A .22 pistol was located on the road directly under the vehicle. A magazine containing 10 rounds of .22 ammunition was found in the front passenger footwell and a further 50 rounds of 12-gauge ammunition were located on the rear passenger seat.

[3] When Mr Ward was searched a shotgun round and 2 grams of methamphetamine were located in his hooded fleece.

District Court sentence

[4] The sentencing Court was provided with an affidavit from one of Mr Ward’s co-defendants, Ramon Turner, which acknowledged the guns and ammunition located in the vehicle belonged to him and had already been in the car when Mr Ward got into it.2 The Judge accepted that, while Mr Ward’s offending should be viewed as less serious than Mr Turner’s, the distinction to be drawn was modest and that a condign sentence should be imposed.

1 Police v Ward [2021] NZDC 21934.
2 Mr Turner, who also pleaded guilty, was sentenced by the same Judge to 33 months’ imprisonment on the two Arms Act charges and further charges of possessing a drug utensil and MDMA.

[5] Judge Crosbie identified the aggravating features as being the number of firearms found in the vehicle, the presence of two other individuals with gang associations, ammunition for the firearms being directly accessible and the fact this occurred in the early hours of the morning. The Judge remarked that the presence of firearms in those circumstances, which were ready and able to be used, was a “recipe for disaster”. It was observed that the…

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 Ward v Police

Details

AGLC: Ward v Police [2022] NZHC 1051
Case: [2022] NZHC 1051
Decision Date: 13 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tim Aiden Ward, the appellant, versus the New Zealand Police, the respondent, the High Court was called upon to review the appellant’s sentence for unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. Mr Ward was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment by the Christchurch District Court following a guilty plea to two charges under the Arms Act 1983. The appellant’s appeal was focused on the severity of the starting point of 42 months’ imprisonment set by the sentencing Judge, which he argued was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues central to this appeal revolved around the appropriateness of the starting point for sentencing in cases of firearm possession, given the particular circumstances of the offending and the mitigating factors presented. The Court had to determine whether the District Court’s assessment of the seriousness of the offending and the resulting starting point was justified, particularly in light of the mitigating factors presented by the appellant.

The High Court, in its judgment, acknowledged that the appellant’s offending constituted serious criminal conduct due to the presence of multiple firearms, their modification for concealment, and the ready accessibility of ammunition. However, the Court found that the starting point of 42 months’ imprisonment was excessive. It was noted that while the firearms were not loaded at the time of their discovery, they could have been easily assembled and made ready for use, indicating a potential for significant harm. The Court also considered the appellant’s lesser involvement in the ownership and control of the firearms, as well as his prior convictions, in determining an appropriate starting point. Ultimately, the Court concluded that a three-year starting point, adjusted for the appellant’s guilty plea and personal circumstances, would have been more appropriate, leading to a sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment. This was only marginally less than the sentence imposed by the District Court, leading the Court to find that the sentence was within the range of judicial discretion and not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The Court emphasized that an appellate court will not interfere with a sentence unless it is manifestly excessive or demonstrates a failure to apply the correct legal principles. In this case, the sentence was considered to be within the appropriate range and adequately justified by the sentencing principles.

Orders