Wratt v R - [2021] NZCA 128

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA657/2019
[2021] NZCA 128

BETWEEN	DAVID WAYNE WRATT Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	17 February 2021
Court:	Gilbert, Mallon and Edwards JJ
Counsel:	E J Forster for Appellant M L Wong and F E S F Girgis for Respondent
Judgment:	22 April 2021 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
BThe appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Mallon J)

Introduction

Mr Wratt was charged with importing methamphetamine.[1] The representative charge related to four packages of methamphetamine which Mr Wratt had arranged through the “Dark Web” to be sent under false names to his address or nearby addresses. The total quantity of methamphetamine imported in this way was 452 g over a five-month period. All four packages were intercepted by the New Zealand Customs Service (Customs) and linked to Mr Wratt.
[1]Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a) and (2)(a); maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Mr Wratt pleaded guilty and was sentenced on 11 November 2019 to six years and nine months’ imprisonment.[2] He appeals his sentence as manifestly excessive. He says that the starting point for his offending was too high because his role was wrongly characterised as “leading” in terms of the indicia set out in Zhang v R.[3] He also says his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) warranted a higher discount.
[2]R v Wratt [2019] NZDC 22470 [Sentencing judgment].
[3]Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648.
The notice of appeal was filed a few days out of time. Mr Wratt has explained that he gave instructions to his lawyer to appeal promptly but there were delays in the mail system. The Crown does not oppose an extension of time. We consider an extension is appropriate in the circumstances and grant the application accordingly.

Background

The first importation concerned a package sent from the United States. Mr Wratt used a false name for the addressee and gave his home address in Napier for delivery. The package was intercepted by Customs on 8 September 2017. It was found to contain approximately 236 g of methamphetamine. In collaboration with police, Customs replaced all but 10 g of methamphetamine with a substitute material.
The package was then delivered on 18 September 2017 by courier to Mr Wratt’s home address. An associate answered the door and signed for the package. Shortly after this, Mr Wratt and his associate drove away in Mr Wratt’s car with the package. Mr Wratt, who was driving the car, told his associate to open the package. A tamper alarm inside the package alerted the police and they attempted to stop the car. Mr Wratt and his associate were apprehended after a short pursuit.
Mr Wratt was bailed to a Dunedin address on 20 October 2017. He arranged for the importation of three further packages while on bail:
(a)A…

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 Wratt v R

Details

AGLC: Wratt v R [2021] NZCA 128
Case: [2021] NZCA 128
Decision Date: 22 April 2021 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Wayne Wratt appeals his sentence for importing 452 g of methamphetamine over a five-month period, arguing it was manifestly excessive. He claims his role was wrongly characterised as "leading" in terms of the indicia set out in Zhang v R and that his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) warranted a higher discount. The appeal was filed a few days out of time, but an extension was granted. The court considered the quantity of drugs imported, Mr Wratt’s role in the offending, and personal mitigating factors such as his ADHD diagnosis. The court found that the starting point for Mr Wratt’s offending was appropriate and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The application for an extension of time to appeal was granted, and the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders