EKINS V R [2017] NZCA 518

EKINS V R [2017] NZCA 518 [16 November 2017]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA400/2017[2017] NZCA 518BETWEEN ANTHONY NELSON EKINSAppellantAND THE QUEENRespondentHearing: 13 November 2017Court: Harrison, Lang and Ellis JJCounsel: C G Tuck for AppellantZ R Johnston for RespondentJudgment: 16 November 2017 at 10.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe appeal against conviction is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Harrison J)[1] The appellant, Anthony Ekins, was found guilty following a trial beforeJudge Ingram and a jury in the District Court at Tauranga on charges of possessingmethamphetamine for supply and cannabis for supply. He was convicted andsentenced to five years' imprisonment.1 He appeals against his conviction on themethamphetamine charges only on the ground that the verdicts were against the weightof evidence and therefore unreasonable.1 R v Ekins [2017] NZDC 3143.[2] The essential facts are not in dispute. The police executed a search warrant onMr Ekins' home in Tauranga in April 2015. They found a large amount of driedcannabis located in different parts of the house. Mr Ekins accepted that the cannabiswas his. His defence at trial on the charges of possessing cannabis for supply was thatthe drugs were for his personal use. The jury's verdicts reflect its rejection of thatcontention.[3] The police executed a second warrant at the same address in July 2015. Theyfound further cannabis and, in the same upstairs room where some of the cannabis hadbeen found in April, a blue container. Inside that container were a number of items.There were 22 grams of methamphetamine (with an estimated street value of $30,000),unused snap-lock bags and a glass methamphetamine pipe. His property wasprotected by a CCTV security system. At trial Mr Ekins again accepted that he hadpossession of the cannabis on this occasion but asserted that the drugs were for hispersonal use.[4] Mr Ekins denied possession of the methamphetamine. When asked by a policeofficer about whether his fingerprints would be found on the methamphetamine, heresponded "not sure". Following his arrest, police staff at the District Court removed$2,772 in cash from Mr Ekins. Mr Ekins explained the cash at trial as representingthe proceeds of sale of a Subaru motor vehicle. He said he did not disclose its existencewhen he was earlier arrested because "it's going to be assumed that it's from drugdealing".[5] Mr Ekins' defence at trial was that the drugs belonged to a visitor at his house,one Peter Holland. Mr Ekins was downstairs with his baby in the lounge when thepolice arrived to execute the search warrant. Mr Holland was upstairs in the bedroomwhere the methamphetamine was found. He was also in possession of amethamphetamine pipe.[6] Mr Tuck, who did not appear for Mr Ekins in the District Court, effectivelyadopts and repeats Mr Ekins' trial defence as the ground for appeal. He says the onlyevidence linking Mr Ekins to possession of the methamphetamine was its discoveryin his home. He says the Crown could not exclude beyond reasonable doubt that MrHolland was in possession of the methamphetamine.[7] We reject this ground of appeal. The methamphetamine was found in a roomin a house which Mr Ekins occupied. It was located in the same area where he wasdrying cannabis found at the first search. The discovery of a large quantity, hisequivocal response to the police of "not sure" about his fingerprints, the existence ofthe CCTV security system, and his possession of $2,772 in cash are all availablecircumstances supporting the Crown case.[8] Moreover, as the Judge correctly directed the jury, it was an available inferencefrom the facts that Messrs Ekins and Holland were in joint possession of themethamphetamine. And the jury's unchallenged guilty verdicts on the cannabischarges reflect its rejection of Mr Ekins' denial that he possessed large quantities ofunlawful drugs for supply. It was open to the jury to reject Mr Ekins' exculpatorydenial on the methamphetamine charges also and find beyond reasonable doubt thathe was in possession of the methamphetamine, and for the purpose of supply.We agree with Ms Johnston for the Crown that this appeal does not approach the highthreshold for interfering with guilty verdicts on the ground of unreasonableness.2Result[9] The appeal against conviction is dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent2 See R v Owen [2007] NZSC 102, [2008] 2 NZLR 37.