Wilson v R - [2011] NZCA 197

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA780/2010
[2011] NZCA 197

BETWEEN GREGORY TAMATI WILSON
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 16 May 2011

Court: Harrison, Simon France and French JJ

Counsel: G A Anderson for Appellant
B D Tantrum and F Cuncannon for Respondent

Judgment: 19 May 2011 at 10.15 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Appeal dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

Introduction

Gregory Wilson appeals against a sentence of three years and three months imprisonment imposed in the High Court at Auckland on 28 October 2010 on his conviction following trial on charges of possession of equipment capable of being used to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of materials capable of being used for the same purpose and possession of precursor substances.[1] At the end of the trial Mr Wilson pleaded guilty to charges of possessing methamphetamine and possessing a pipe both for the purposes of smoking methamphetamine. He was acquitted on a charge of manufacturing methamphetamine.
[1]R v Wilson HC Auckland CRI-2009-044-927, 28 October 2010.
Mr Wilson’s counsel, Mr Anderson, submits that the sentence imposed by Peters J was manifestly excessive.

Facts

The facts are not in material dispute. We adopt the Judge’s summary as follows:
[7] On 15 December 2008 the Police executed a search warrant at a storage unit in Albany. Although the rental agreement in respect of the unit was in your partner’s name, it was accepted that you largely had the use of the unit. You originally had one unit, then you took over a larger one. In this larger unit the Police located various chemicals, materials and items of equipment commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Amongst other things:
a) The Police found equipment, including a steam distiller, an electronic mill, a home brew heater pad, a blender jug bearing pink and yellow residues, a hand beater, and assorted glassware, dishes and containers.
b) The Police found pre-cursor substances being hydrochloric acid, toluene and pseudoephedrine.
c) The Police also found materials containing hypophosphorus acid, iodine, and several documents relating to the manufacture of methamphetamine.
Additionally, the agreed summary of facts recited that:
(a)Hypophosphorous acid is highly sought after by methamphetamine manufacturers, with a black market value of about $10,000 per litre. Mr Wilson had possession of 11 litres. On that basis, one of his precursors was worth at least $100,000;
(b)The total amount of hypophosphorous acid was sufficient to manufacture, in conjunction with other chemicals, between 6.5 and 9.36 kilograms of methamphetamine with a street value of between $6.5 and $9.36 million.
Mr Wilson’s defence at trial was that he did not know what the items were and that he was simply storing them for a friend. We agree with Peters J that the only inference to be drawn from the jury’s verdicts is that it rejected his defence. Nevertheless, Mr Wilson has continued to deny his guilt.

High Court

By applying the totality principle, Peters J fixed a base starting point of three years imprisonment on 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 Wilson v R

Details

AGLC: Wilson v R [2011] NZCA 197
Case: [2011] NZCA 197
Decision Date: 19 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal of Wilson v R, the appellant, Gregory Tamati Wilson, challenged the sentence imposed by the High Court at Auckland. The case involved Wilson's conviction on charges related to the possession of equipment and materials capable of manufacturing methamphetamine, as well as possession of precursor substances. During the trial, Wilson pleaded guilty to charges of possessing methamphetamine and a pipe for smoking it but was acquitted of manufacturing methamphetamine. The High Court sentenced Wilson to three years and three months imprisonment. Wilson's appeal focused on the severity of the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the High Court was manifestly excessive. The Court had to determine if the starting point for the sentence, as well as the adjustments made for Wilson's previous convictions and other factors, were justified. Wilson's counsel argued that the base starting point should have been lower, suggesting a starting point of two years and six months. The Court examined whether the totality principle was correctly applied and if the factors considered by the High Court warranted the increased starting point. Additionally, the Court assessed whether any discount should have been given for the time Wilson spent under bail conditions before the trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court correctly applied the totality principle and appropriately considered the factors justifying an increased starting point. The Court noted that the maximum sentence for the principal charges was five years, and the factors highlighted by the High Court—such as the volume, value, and potential profits from the precursor substances and materials—placed Wilson's offending at the serious end of the spectrum. The Court also rejected the argument for a discount for time spent under bail conditions, stating that these conditions were standard and did not equate to a remand in custody. Consequently, the Court dismissed Wilson's appeal against the sentence.

Orders