R v King [2016] NZHC 2890 (1 December 2016)

Last Updated: 3 August 2019

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-092-5823 [2016] NZHC 2890

THE QUEEN

v

DAVID KING

Hearing:	1 December 2016
Appearances:	Z Hamill for Crown J Hudson (on behalf of S Tait) for Defendant
Judgment:	1 December 2016

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for additional disclosure under Criminal Disclosure Act 2008]

R v KING [2016] NZHC 2890 [1 December 2016]

[1] Mr King is charged with importing two kilograms of methamphetamine into New Zealand. He now seeks orders under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008 requiring the Crown to provide details of other cases that might have similarities to his.¹

Background

[2] The charge was laid as a result of a trip that Mr King made to South Africa in April and May 2016. He left New Zealand on 28 April 2016 and travelled to South Africa. He then returned on 22 May 2016 having travelled to New Zealand via Singapore.

[3] When Mr King entered New Zealand, his bag was searched and x-rayed. This confirmed that the base of the bag had an item secreted within it. When this was investigated, Customs Officers found a white plastic bag containing approximately two kilograms of methamphetamine concealed in the hidden compartment. The value of the drug is placed at between $1 million and $1.6 million.

[4] Mr King initially told Customs Officers that he had purchased the suitcase in South Africa from a shopping mall. He later said that another person, whom he knew as Elizabeth, bought him the bag.

The defence case

[5] At trial, the defence will be based on an expanded version of the second explanation that Mr King gave to the Customs Officers. His counsel advises me that Mr King will tell the jury that he travelled to South Africa after coming into contact with persons in that country through online communications. He went to South Africa under the impression that he would receive a large sum of money once he was there. In South Africa he met the woman called Elizabeth. She told him that he needed a new suitcase, and then arranged to purchase a suitcase for him. Mr King’s evidence will be that he travelled from South Africa to New Zealand having no knowledge that

¹ Criminal Disclosure Act 2008, s 30(1).

a large quantity of methamphetamine was secreted in the bag that Elizabeth had provided him.

The application

[6] Mr King now seeks access to information held by New Zealand Customs regarding other importations that have similar overtones. The prosecution has provided Mr King’s counsel with a summary of facts in respect of one such case, but declines to provide him with two others on the basis that the material contained within the summaries of fact is not relevant to the issues the jury in the present case will be required to determine.²

Decision

[7] I uphold the prosecution stance in relation to the disclosure sought. The jury in the present case will be required to examine Mr King’s state of knowledge having regard to the factual circumstances in which he acquired and transported the suitcase containing the methamphetamine. The circumstances in other cases, even if they are similar to Mr King’s, will have no relevance to the jury’s determination. There are also significant practical difficulties regarding use of the material in respect of which Mr King seeks disclosure. A summary of facts will not assist Mr King’s counsel or the jury to understand the factual circumstances of other cases. For that reason as well I do not consider the material has any relevance to Mr King’s case.

[8] During the course of argument, I advised Mr King’s counsel that defence counsel may be permitted at trial to put to appropriate prosecution witnesses the proposition that drug dealers overseas use “mules”, or couriers, as a means by which to import drugs into New Zealand. Some of those persons may know what they are carrying whilst others may not. Beyond that, however, I do not consider that the circumstances of other cases will be relevant to the issues in Mr King’s case.

2. Section 14(2)(a). In this context material will be relevant if it tends to support or rebut, or has a material bearing on, the case against the defendant: s 8.

Result

[9] The application for disclosure is accordingly declined.




Lang J

Solicitors:

Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau