Woods v The Queen - [2016] NZHC 1037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-485-19 [2016] NZHC 1037

BETWEEN
MICHAEL DAVID WOODS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 17 May 2016

Counsel:

C J Nicholls for Appellant
F G Biggs for Respondent

Judgment:

19 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

Introduction

[1] Mr Woods was sentenced to two years and seven months’ imprisonment for supply of drugs and theft offending by Judge Butler on 9 March 2016 at the Hutt Valley District Court.1

[2] Mr Woods appeals on the basis that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

Background

[3] Mr Woods pleaded guilty to one charge of theft,2 one representative charge of supplying a Class A controlled drug (methamphetamine),3 one representative charge

1      R v Woods [2016] NZDC 4069.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 223(b). Maximum penalty 7 years’ imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and s 6(2)(a). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.

WOODS v R [2016] NZHC 1037 [19 May 2016]

of supplying a Class B controlled drug (Ritalin),4 and one representative charge of supplying a Class C controlled drug (cannabis plant).5

[4] The agreed summary of facts presented at sentencing recorded that on 26

October 2015 Mr Woods arranged with an associate to utilise a vehicle with a tow bar. The pair drove to an enclosed property in Belmont, Lower Hutt. Mr Woods undid a chained gate in order to enter the property. The pair located a trailer, attached it to the vehicle and removed it from the property. The trailer was subsequently sold for approximately $500 and Mr Wood’s associate was paid $100 for the use of his vehicle. The trailer is valued at $5000 and neither Mr Woods nor the associate had permission to enter the property and take the trailer.

[5] In unrelated offending, Mr Woods sent 96 text messages between 16 June

2015 and 10 November 2015 in which he offered to supply at least of 24.2 grams of methamphetamine. Mr Woods would buy a gram for around $500 to $700 and would sell it by the quarter gram for $200 to $250. He would retain some to fuel his own drug habit. Mr Woods supplied at least five grams of methamphetamine.

[6] Mr Woods supplied at least two trays (each tray containing 10 pills) of Ritalin. Between 18 June 2015 and 2 October 2015 he sent 12 text messages in which he offered to supply Ritalin.

[7] Mr Woods supplied at least one ounce of cannabis plant. Between 16 June

2015 and 10 November 2015 he sent text messages in which he offered to supply cannabis plant.

[8] Mr Woods has a limited offending history. He has two previous convictions for driving whilst disqualified, and one Youth Court entry for violence for which he was admonished and discharged. Mr Woods has no previous drug offending, nor
dishonesty offending. When spoken to by the police, he admitted the facts outlined.

4 Section 6(1)(c) and s 6(2)(b). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
5 Section 6(1)(d) and 6(2)(c). Maximum…

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 Woods v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Woods v The Queen [2016] NZHC 1037
Case: [2016] NZHC 1037
Decision Date: 19 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. Michael David Woods appealed against his sentencing for drug supply and theft, which resulted in two years and seven months’ imprisonment. Woods contended that the sentence was excessively harsh. The court needed to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and if there was any error in the sentencing process that warranted a reduction. The court examined the reasoning behind the sentence, particularly the six-month uplift for the theft charge and whether it was justified. Additionally, the court considered whether the remorse and motivation of Mr. Woods should have led to a further discount.

The court found that while the six-month uplift for the theft charge appeared excessive, it was not enough to render the overall sentence manifestly excessive. The court reasoned that the starting point for the drug charges alone was appropriate, and there was no error in the sentencing process that would warrant a reduction. The court also concluded that Mr. Woods' remorse, though genuine, did not meet the extraordinary threshold required for a further discount. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders