Williams v The Queen - [2005] NZCA 315

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA63/05
CA64/05
CA66/05
CA92/05
CA101/05
THE QUEEN
v
ROSS ALEXANDER WILLIAMS
DARRYL JAMES ABRAHAM
DOUGLAS RONALD WILLIAMS
DARRYL STUART WILLIAMS
HAYDEN STUART ABRAHAM
Hearing:23-24 November 2005

Court:Hammond, Williams and Gendall JJ
Counsel:F P Hogan for Appellant Ross Williams

G J King and C J Milnes for Appellant Darryl Abraham
C J Tennet for Appellant Douglas Williams
P J A Buckle for Appellant Darryl Williams
W C Pyke for Appellant Hayden Abraham
B J Horsley and M F Laracy for Crown

Judgment:9 December 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALL OF THE APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ARE DISMISSED.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS
Hammond J [1]
Gendall J [40]
HAMMOND J
Table of Contents
Para No

Introduction  [1]
Some procedural issues on the appeal
Background  [6]
The applications
(a)     Ross Williams  [15]
(b)     Darryl James Abraham  [26]
(c)     Cross-examination  [29]
(d)     Our determination  [38]

Introduction
[1]       In early March 2002 the police discovered quite extensive cannabis plots at Kereta, which is on the Coromandel Peninsula. These five plots were on DOC land, which adjoined land owned and occupied by Mr Ross Williams. There were tracks leading from his property to these plots, and access to a separate cannabis drying area, also on DOC land.
[2]       Later in March 2002 the police returned to this area and found that 265 plants in the four plots – labelled A, C, D and E for the purposes of this proceeding - had been substantially harvested. The cannabis yield from the plots, thought to be likely over 70 kg and with a value of several hundred thousand dollars, had gone. The Crown case was that it had been sold. Cannabis plants remained in plot B.
[3]       Covert surveillance of the area was undertaken by the police and two of the appellants – Hayden Abraham and Darryl Williams – were observed working in that plot B on 26 March 2002. Certain other observations were also made by the police which we will deal with fully later in this judgment.
[4]       In the result, seven charges were laid involving selling and cultivation of cannabis. After a lengthy trial in the District Court at Hamilton all five appellants were convicted on two charges of selling cannabis and one of cultivating cannabis. They were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment.
[5]       Mr Ross Williams has appealed against his conviction; his oldest son, Douglas Williams and an associate Darryl Abraham appealed against their convictions and sentence; Ross Williams’ youngest son Darryl Williams (aged 19 at the time) and Darryl Abraham’s son Hayden Abraham (aged 17 at the time) appeal only against their sentences.
Some procedural issues on the appeal
Background
[6]       What appears to us to have been relatively straightforward cannabis prosecutions, which necessarily turned solely on the strength of the Crown case against each of these appellants, attracted a good deal of procedural and evidential wrangling between counsel throughout this case, some of which issues have spilled over into this appeal.
[7]       The trial…

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 Williams v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Williams v The Queen [2005] NZCA 315
Case: [2005] NZCA 315
Decision Date: 9 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Williams v The Queen, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered appeals against conviction and sentence brought by five appellants who were convicted of cultivating, selling, and possessing cannabis for the purpose of sale. The appellants argued various grounds for overturning their convictions and sentences, including claims of police misconduct, inadequate legal representation, and insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals against conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellants' claims of police misconduct, including planting of evidence and perjury, were baseless and unsupported by evidence. The Court found that the trial judge had properly handled the trial, and that the appellants' convictions were supported by substantial evidence, including police observations, photographs, and circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal also found that the appellants' claims of inadequate legal representation were unfounded. The Court found that the appellants' trial counsel had been competent and had made reasonable strategic decisions in presenting their defence. The Court found that the appellants' claims of insufficient evidence to support their convictions were also unfounded, as the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.

Finally, the Court of Appeal found that the appellants' sentences were not manifestly excessive, and that the trial judge had appropriately considered the roles of each offender in determining their sentences. The Court concluded that the appellants' appeals against conviction and sentence should be dismissed.

Orders