Wedge v The King - [2024] NZCA 259

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA788/2023
[2024] NZCA 259

BETWEEN	CAITLYN ROZENA WEDGE Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Cooke, Moore and Osborne JJ
Counsel:	C G Tuck and A O Belloir-Spense for Applicant P D Marshall and W J Harvey for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	21 June 2024 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cooke J)

The applicant seeks leave to appeal a decision of the High Court dismissing her appeal from a decision of the District Court at a Judge-alone trial finding her guilty of one charge of possession of cannabis for supply.[1] The District Court did not accept the applicant’s argument that the evidence in support of the charges had been improperly obtained,[2] found the charges proved on the basis of that evidence,[3] and sentenced her to 60 hours’ community work and six months’ supervision.[4]
[1]Wedge v Police [2023] NZHC 2773 [High Court judgment].
[2]Police v Wedge [2023] NZDC 11027 [Admissibility judgment].
[3]Police v Wedge [2023] NZDC 29493 [Verdict judgment].
[4]Police v Wedge [2023] NZDC 6976 [Sentencing judgment].
On appeal the High Court agreed with the District Court that the relevant search was not unlawful and dismissed her appeal against conviction.[5] The applicant now seeks leave to pursue a second appeal pursuant to s 237 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

Relevant background

[5]High Court judgment, above n 1.

In the early hours of 15 June 2022, police stopped a car driven by the applicant in Papamoa. She initially gave false details, but after officers established her true identity, she was arrested for breaching her bail conditions and driving while disqualified.
The police then began arranging for her vehicle to be impounded for 28 days as required by s 96(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA). Before the vehicle was towed away and stored by a stowage firm, a constable conducted an inventory search of the vehicle in accordance with the implicit duty in s 96(4) of the LTA to secure and safeguard personal property in an impounded vehicle.[6] Inside the vehicle on the passenger seat was a receptacle described as a “cookie container”. When the container was opened it was found to contain cannabis. The officer then exercised powers to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle under s 20 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (the SSA) which resulted in the discovery of three sets of scales, several plastic bags, cash, two mobile phones and what is described as a “tick book”. The total amount of cannabis found was 46 grams.
[6]Tuato v R [2011] NZCA 278 at [12].
In the District Court, Judge Lawson applied the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Ngan and this Court’s decision in Casey v R and concluded that, given that the officer considered that the cookie container contained something other than…

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 Wedge v The King

Details

AGLC: Wedge v The King [2024] NZCA 259
Case: [2024] NZCA 259
Decision Date: 21 June 2024 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Caitlyn Rozena Wedge appealed against her conviction by the District Court for possession of cannabis for supply, which the High Court dismissed. Wedge sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing the inventory search was unlawful and unreasonable, and the warrantless search under s 20 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 was unlawful. The Court of Appeal considered whether the proposed appeal raised an issue of general or public importance or if a miscarriage of justice might occur without leave. The Court found that while there might be a legitimate challenge to the warrantless search, the primary issue was the legality of the inventory search, which was fact-specific and did not raise a broader issue of general or public importance. The Court also found the conclusions of the District Court and the High Court regarding the admissibility of evidence under s 30 of the Evidence Act were sound, and the proposed appeal did not present a strong challenge to those findings. Consequently, the Court declined Wedge's application for leave to bring a second appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Wedge's application for leave to bring a second appeal. The Court found that the proposed appeal did not raise an issue of general or public importance or indicate a risk of a miscarriage of justice if leave was not granted. The Court upheld the decisions of the District Court and the High Court, finding that the inventory search and the admissibility of the evidence under s 30 of the Evidence Act were properly assessed. The Court concluded that the proposed appeal was primarily fact-specific and did not involve broader legal principles or significant public interest.

Orders