Wisely v The Queen

Case [2019] NZHC 306


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

Details
AGLC
Wisely v The Queen [2019] NZHC 306
Case
[2019] NZHC 306
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kelvin Bruce Wisely appeals his sentence for drug trafficking and cultivation. The appeal focuses on the severity of the sentence, the inclusion of a cannabis cultivation charge, and the forfeiture of cash. The High Court of New Zealand reviews the appeal, examining the sentencing principles and the evidence regarding the forfeiture. The court finds the sentence to be within the appropriate range and affirms the forfeiture order based on the cash's role in facilitating drug dealing. Ultimately, the appeals are dismissed.

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.