Wood v The Queen - [2013] NZCA 123

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA643/2012
[2013] NZCA 123

BETWEEN KENNETH CHARLES WOOD
Applicant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 18 and 19 April 2013 (by phone conference)

Counsel: Applicant in person
M J Lillico for Respondent

Judgment: 24 April 2013 at 10.00 am

BAIL JUDGMENT OF WHITE J

The application for bail is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

The applicant, Mr Wood, pleaded guilty after being given a sentencing indication[1] to possession of cannabis for sale. Mr Wood subsequently sought leave to vacate his guilty plea, but this was declined.[2]
[1] R v Wood DC Whangarei CRI-2010-088-3488, 24 February 2011.
[2] R v Wood DC Whangarei CRI-2010-088-3488, 20 July 2012.
Mr Wood was then sentenced by Judge DJ McDonald to 25 months’ imprisonment.[3]
[3] R v Wood DC Whangarei CRI-2010-088-3488, 7 February 2013.
Mr Wood has appealed against the refusal of the application to withdraw his guilty plea and against his conviction. He claims a miscarriage of justice has occurred because the presiding Judge and the Crown displayed apparent bias and denied him due process.

Basis of application

Mr Wood submits that he should be granted bail pending the hearing of his appeal on the grounds that:
(a)his appeal raises important issues relating to the ongoing abuse of executive power in New Zealand society and his entitlement to a fair hearing;
(b)he is entitled to represent himself, but this means that he will face considerable difficulties in preparing for his appeal if he is required to remain in prison;
(c)he will effectively be denied access to justice; and
(d)he has been in prison since 7 February 2013 and is concerned that his farm property is not being adequately maintained in his absence.
In response to my questions Mr Wood advised that while he could afford legal representation he has chosen to represent himself, as he is entitled to do.
For the Crown, Mr Lillico has filed a memorandum opposing Mr Wood’s application. He submits that the grounds put forward in the application are not sufficiently exceptional to displace the statutory presumption against bail pending determination of the appeal. He points out that:
(a)The appeal against conviction in this case will effectively have to consider whether Mr Wood ought to be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. Such cases must inevitably deal with the credibility of the defence to the charge.[4]
[4]      R v Pira HC Rotorua S 3/90, 11 April 1990.
(b)There is no reasonably arguable defence to the current charge given that:
(i)     Mr Wood admitted the cannabis was his;
(ii)Mr Wood was aware of the number of packages of cannabis found and the weight of the cannabis in each one of those packages.
(iii)the cannabis weighed 662.2 grams, many times over the specified quantity above which a person in possession of controlled drugs is presumed to possess the drugs for the purpose of supply or sale;[5]
(iv)    the cannabis was packed into 20 individual bags;
(v)there was more than $1000 in cash found in Mr Wood’s…

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 Wood v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wood v The Queen [2013] NZCA 123
Case: [2013] NZCA 123
Decision Date: 24 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kenneth Charles Wood has appealed against his conviction and sentence for possession of cannabis for sale, arguing that the presiding judge and the Crown displayed bias and denied him due process. Wood's application for bail pending the hearing of his appeal was before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Wood argued that he should be granted bail due to the importance of the issues raised in his appeal, his right to represent himself, the potential for denial of access to justice, and concerns about his farm property. The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the grounds for bail were not exceptional enough to override the statutory presumption against bail pending appeal.

The court considered the application under the Bail Act 2000, which requires the court to consider whether granting bail would be in the interests of justice. The court found that Wood had not shown that his appeal had a strong chance of success or that there were exceptional circumstances warranting bail. The court noted that the appeal would not be rendered nugatory by Wood remaining in custody and that the potential difficulties in preparing for the appeal while in custody did not justify bail. The court also rejected Wood's concern about the maintenance of his farm property as a reason for bail, stating that any hardship arising from imprisonment is an inevitable consequence of a prison sentence.

The court declined Wood's application for bail pending appeal. The appeal is to be heard on Wednesday 10 July 2013 in the Auckland Criminal Appeal Division.

Orders