White v Police - [2015] NZHC 1654

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-409-000066 [2015] NZHC 1654

BETWEEN
HEATHER ANNE WHITE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 15 July 2015

Appearances:

T Aickin for the Appellant
B Hawes for the Respondent

Judgment:

15 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Introduction

[1] The appellant has made application for leave to appeal certain rulings made by Judge Couch in relation to a Judge-alone trial in the District Court. I heard submissions from counsel on the morning of 15 July 2015. I am giving my judgment now as the trial is due to reconvene on 16 July 2015.

[2] The appellant’s home was searched and she was arrested on 23 January 2014. She faces one charge under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 of possession of morphine sulphate tablets, a Class B controlled drug, for supply. She faces a further charge of supplying that Class B controlled drug.

[3] On 10 September 2014, there was a pre-trial hearing over the admissibility of certain evidence. There was judgment in relation to that issue on 17 September
2014. An initial Judge-alone trial scheduled to begin on 2 March 2015 was

adjourned on that date. The trial was rescheduled to begin on 24 June 2015.

WHITE v POLICE [2015] NZHC 1654 [15 July 2015]

[4] At the commencement of that hearing, the Police sought an adjournment of the hearing because they had recently become aware there was going to be an issue as to whether tablets obtained from the appellant’s home did in fact contain morphine, a Class B controlled drug. The Judge agreed to give the Police an opportunity to call evidence in that regard. Defence counsel opposed the adjournment but, with the Judge indicating that such an adjournment would be permitted, she agreed to the trial beginning with it being adjourned on a part-heard basis to enable the Police to call the relevant evidence.

[5] The trial began on 24 June 2015 but was adjourned part-heard to resume on 1

July 2015.

[6] On 27 June 2015, the Police provided defence counsel with an Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) analyst’s certificate confirming that the relevant tablets contained the Class B controlled drug morphine.

[7] When the trial resumed on 1 July 2015, defence counsel objected to the admission of the document that had been provided by ESR, firstly, on the basis it was not a certificate in the form required by s 31(2) Misuse of Drugs Act and, secondly, because it had not been provided to the defendant at least seven clear days before the hearing, as required by s 31(3). The Police then sought and were granted a further adjournment of the part-heard hearing to 16 July 2015 so that the document could be put in evidence. The Judge also ruled that the formal statement provided by ESR did qualify as a certificate for the purpose of s 31(2).

[8] On 7 July 2015, counsel for the appellant filed a notice of application for…

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 White v Police

Details

AGLC: White v Police [2015] NZHC 1654
Case: [2015] NZHC 1654
Decision Date: 15 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Heather Anne White, sought leave to appeal certain rulings made by Judge Couch in relation to a Judge-alone trial in the District Court. The appellant was facing charges of possession and supply of morphine sulphate tablets, a Class B controlled drug. The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in granting adjournments to allow the police to present evidence regarding the nature of the substance found in the appellant's possession.

The court had to determine if the adjournments granted by the District Court judge involved an error of law or principle, or whether they were within the judge's discretion. The appellant's counsel argued that the judge made an error in allowing the prosecution to present evidence after the trial had commenced, which prejudiced the appellant's defence. In response, the Crown submitted that the adjournments were within the judge's discretion and were necessary to ensure justice.

The High Court found that the adjournments were within the judge's discretion and did not involve an error of law. The court noted that the appellant had not objected to the substance being morphine until shortly before the trial, and that the police had a reasonable explanation for not having the evidence earlier. The court also found that the appellant had not been prejudiced by the adjournments and that the adjournments were in the interests of justice.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and no leave was granted.

Orders