IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE
CRI-2018-412-28
[2019] NZHC 306
BETWEEN KELVIN BRUCE WISELY
Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Hearing: 4 February 2019 Appearances:
A Stevens QC for Appellant C Ure for Respondent
Judgment:
1 March 2019
JUDGMENT OF MANDER J
[1] Mr Kelvin Wisely was sentenced by Judge Crosbie to an effective term of seven years and 10 months’ imprisonment for dealing in methamphetamine and cultivating cannabis. An order was also made for the forfeiture of cash found at Mr Wisely’s property. He appeals the sentence, alleging that it was manifestly excessive, and challenges the forfeiture on the grounds the Judge’s assessment of the evidence relating to that issue was wrong.
Background
Supply of methamphetamine - 29 g
[2] During May 2017, Mr Wisely supplied an associate with 29 g of methamphetamine. An electronic surveillance operation was commenced regarding his activities which ran over the course of July. It provided evidence to support a further three charges of supplying methamphetamine, a charge of possessing
WISELY v R [2019] NZHC 306 [1 March 2019]
methamphetamine for supply, and a further charge of conspiring to supply methamphetamine.
Supply of methamphetamine – 1 g
[3] On 11 July 2017, Mr Wisely supplied 1 g of methamphetamine to an associate for the sum of $500.
Supply of methamphetamine – one ounce
[4] On 11 July, the defendant advised another associate that he would have at least one, but possibly two, ounces of methamphetamine which he would be able to supply to him over the weekend. The associate advised that the last ounce he had procured had been sold within 24 hours. Mr Wisely and his associate made arrangements to meet and the methamphetamine was supplied.
[5] On 18 July, the same associate discussed procuring more methamphetamine from Mr Wisely. He advised Mr Wisely that he wanted one ounce of methamphetamine because the market where he was selling the drug was “flooded” at that time and it would be slower to sell. Mr Wisely told the associate that he would hold on to the other ounces of methamphetamine but needed to get rid of the remaining methamphetamine before a new shipment arrived.
Supply of methamphetamine – one ounce
[6] On an earlier unknown date, Mr Wisely had supplied methamphetamine to a different associate who resided in Gore. On 11 July, during a conversation with a Dunedin associate, Mr Wisely advised that the Gore associate was coming to get methamphetamine from him later that day. Over the next two days Mr Wisely attempted to contact his Gore associate to inform him that the methamphetamine was ready to be picked up.
[7] On 12 July, Mr Wisely spoke with the Gore associate, demanding that he bring the $8,200 that he was owed when he next visited. On 16 July, Mr Wisely again spoke with the Gore associate, pressuring him to visit him and bring the cash. Mr Wisely advised that if the money was not…
Continue reading Wisely v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Wisely v The Queen [2019] NZHC 306
- Case
- [2019] NZHC 306
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.