Watt v The Queen - [2014] NZCA 459

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA181/2014
[2014] NZCA 459

BETWEEN	SHANE MICHAEL WATT Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	4 September 2014
Court:	Ellen France P, Asher and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	M W Ryan for Appellant M D Downs for Respondent
Judgment:	18 September 2014 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellen France P)

Introduction

The appellant was convicted after trial of a representative count of manufacturing methamphetamine. He was sentenced by the trial Judge, Judge Field, to 300 hours community work and 18 months intensive supervision.[1] The appellant appeals against conviction on the basis that the verdict is unreasonable in terms of s 385(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961.
[1]R v Watt DC Auckland CRI-2010-092-11784, 14 March 2014.
We set out the background and then address the merits of the appeal.

Background

The events giving rise to the charge began with purchases by the appellant of laboratory equipment (predominantly glassware) on Trade Me from December 2008. There was evidence at trial of ongoing purchases of equipment up to 9 June 2010. There was further evidence that the appellant purchased substances that have use in the manufacture of methamphetamine, namely, toluene and acetone. In particular, there was evidence the appellant purchased three litres of toluene on 1 July 2010 and that, on 15 and 22 July 2010, he bought a total of eight litres of acetone.
The next step in the narrative occurred on 30 July 2010 when a search warrant was executed at the appellant’s rural property. The focus of police interest was on an implement shed. Entry to the shed was protected by two reinforced doors. The first door was described as “heavily reinforced” with “steel” and “numerous” locks. The shed was also protected by a closed-circuit television system. The evidence from the police was that the 10 cameras in the system were directed to the shed or to its immediate environs.
Inside the shed, police found the equipment and glassware we have described above along with toluene and acetone. In addition, the police located an electronic pH meter and two glass baking dishes in a sink. Both dishes contained liquid in which there was methamphetamine. Around the sink area, four swabs were taken. The evidence of Dr Coxon, from Environmental Science and Research (ESR), was that all four swabs revealed the presence of methamphetamine.
Dr Coxon said that two of the four swabs disclosed a level of methamphetamine consistent with either consumption or manufacture of methamphetamine. A third swab, taken from an area above the shed sink, showed a higher level of methamphetamine consistent with manufacture. Dr Coxon could not “100%” exclude the possibility the findings were accounted for by consumption (smoking) of methamphetamine but her opinion was that methamphetamine had been manufactured on the premises.
When the appellant was questioned by police on the execution of the search warrant, he was asked about the glassware. His response was:…

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 Watt v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Watt v The Queen [2014] NZCA 459
Case: [2014] NZCA 459
Decision Date: 18 September 2014 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Watt v The Queen, the appellant, Shane Michael Watt, appealed against his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine. The conviction followed a trial in the District Court where Watt was sentenced to 300 hours of community work and 18 months of intensive supervision. The primary ground of appeal was that the verdict was unreasonable according to section 385(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961. Watt contended that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, arguing that the jury could not have been satisfied to the requisite standard that he was guilty.

The Court of Appeal needed to determine whether the verdict was unreasonable and if the jury could have reasonably been satisfied that the appellant was guilty based on all the evidence presented. The court considered the principles outlined in R v Owen, which emphasised that a verdict would be unreasonable if, considering all the evidence, the jury could not reasonably be satisfied of the accused's guilt. Additionally, the court referenced the strands of a rope analogy from R v Munro, which underscored that the appellate court should not substitute its view of the evidence but rather perform a review function.

The court found that the evidence, when viewed in its entirety, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The presence of laboratory glassware and chemicals like toluene and acetone, the security measures around the shed, and the presence of methamphetamine in the swabs and liquid in the sink all contributed to a circumstantial case of methamphetamine manufacturing. Although the expert witness could not rule out the possibility of methamphetamine being present due to smoking, the overall evidence was compelling enough to satisfy the jury that manufacturing had occurred. The appellant's inconsistent statements and lies to the police further undermined his defence. The Court of Appeal concluded that the verdict was not unreasonable and dismissed the appeal.

Orders