The Queen v Menzies [2006] NZCA 250 (13 September 2006)

Court of Appeal of New Zealand

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

The Queen v Menzies [2006] NZCA 250 (13 September 2006)

Last Updated: 19 September 2006

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA144/06

THE QUEEN



v



MURRAY ALEXANDER MENZIES

Hearing: 29 August 2006

Court: William Young P, Panckhurst and Ronald Young JJ

Counsel: Appellant In Person
M N Zarifeh for Crown

Judgment: 13 September 2006 at 11am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Panckhurst J)

[1]	Mr Menzies appeals against convictions for manufacturing the class B controlled drug cannabis oil and cultivating cannabis. Convictions upon these charges resulted after a Judge alone hearing (before Judge O’Driscoll) in the District Court at Dunedin. The sole ground of appeal is that s 30 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is invalid and unenforceable. That section provides a defence to persons holding a licence or other exemption entitling them to possess controlled drugs subject to proof by them of the licence or exemption.
[2]	This suggested ground of appeal is misconceived. In the District Court Mr Menzies did not assert that he held a licence or other exemption which entitled him to manufacture cannabis oil, or grow cannabis. Hence, s 30 was of no relevance to his case. Moreover, the argument that s 30 is unlawful and unenforceable is one which Mr Menzies has made to this Court previously and which was emphatically rejected, on the basis that "the Court has no power to strike down or to disregard legislation": R v Menzies CA373/94 17 November 1994.
[3]	That said, we are aware that an appeal is pending to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court in R v Hansen [2005] NZCA 220; (2005) 22 CRNZ 83 in which challenge is made to the reverse onus arising from the possession of controlled drugs in quantities greater than the presumptive level. This is a similar argument to that advanced by Mr Menzies. However, we see no purpose in reserving the present decision to await the outcome in Hansen’s case, since the fact is that neither of the reverse onus provisions in the Misuse of Drugs Act was of any relevance to the present two convictions.
[4]	The appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington