Chapman v R - [2011] NZCA 134

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA593/2010
[2011] NZCA 134

BETWEEN QUINTIN BRUCE CHAPMAN
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 23 February 2011

Court: O'Regan P, Winkelmann and Chisholm JJ

Counsel: R L Thomson for Appellant
J M Jelas for Respondent

Judgment: 5 April 2011 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Winkelmann J)

The appellant, Mr Chapman, pleaded guilty in the District Court to one representative count of supplying methamphetamine, and later pleaded guilty in the High Court to one representative count of supplying methamphetamine and one count of conspiring to supply methamphetamine. He was sentenced on 25 August 2010 by Lang J to eight years imprisonment. He now appeals against sentence on the grounds that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

Factual background

The charges arose from two separate police operations known as Operations Leo and Moremi.
Operation Leo involved the interception by the police of a large volume of cellphone and text messages communication. Although the appellant was not initially a target of Operation Leo, the police turned their attention to him when their monitoring of the communications showed that the appellant was in regular contact with some of the operation’s targets. The police then sought an extension of the interception warrant so that they could intercept the appellant’s phone calls and text messages. Over 84 days, ending in May 2008, the police intercepted just over 7,000 communications from the appellant’s cellphone, of which approximately 2,295 were related to drug dealing in one way or another. By his plea, the appellant accepted that those communications demonstrated that he completed supplies of at least 220 grams of methamphetamine during those 84 days.
Operation Moremi was a separate operation which took place between 18 June 2008 and 14 August 2008. Again, in the course of intercepting the communications of a number of (different) people of interest the police found that the appellant was in contact with them. Through interceptions, the police established that the appellant supplied 2.4 grams of methamphetamine and made two further supplies of an unknown quantity. Those supplies were the subject of the representative count. He was also involved in additional communications concerning the prospective supply of approximately 4.9 grams of methamphetamine. This was the subject of the conspiracy to supply count.
Although the appellant pleaded guilty to the two counts arising out of Operation Moremi, the only amount of supply quantified in this offending was 2.4 grams.

Sentencing Judge’s approach

The Judge said that although the offending occurred in different time frames, and involved different people he proposed to treat the offending as comprising a single series of incidents, and fix an overall starting point that reflected the totality for the offending. The Judge referred to the leading authority in this area R v Fatu.[1] In that case, the Court of Appeal identified a number of bands of offending set principally according to the amount of methamphetamine involved. Band 2 relates to…

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 Chapman v R

Details

AGLC: Chapman v R [2011] NZCA 134
Case: [2011] NZCA 134
Decision Date: 5 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chapman v R was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant, Mr. Chapman, had previously pleaded guilty to charges of supplying methamphetamine and conspiring to supply methamphetamine. The primary issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed by Lang J was manifestly excessive. The Court found that the sentence of eight years imprisonment was proportionate to the gravity of the overall offending and dismissed the appeal.

The charges against Mr. Chapman arose from two separate police operations known as Operations Leo and Moremi. Operation Leo involved the interception of over 7,000 communications from Mr. Chapman's cellphone, approximately 2,295 of which were related to drug dealing. Through this operation, it was established that Mr. Chapman completed supplies of at least 220 grams of methamphetamine. Operation Moremi, which occurred between 18 June 2008 and 14 August 2008, revealed that Mr. Chapman supplied 2.4 grams of methamphetamine and was involved in the prospective supply of approximately 4.9 grams.

The Court of Appeal examined whether the Judge's approach to sentencing was appropriate, considering the totality of the offending. The Judge treated the offending as a single series of incidents and fixed an overall starting point that reflected the totality of the offending. The Judge referred to the leading authority in this area, R v Fatu, which sets out bands of offending based on the amount of methamphetamine involved. The Court found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range, considering the appellant's continued involvement in commercial supply operations and the substantial additional criminality involved in the Operation Moremi offending. The appeal was dismissed as the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Orders