Alison Clunie pleaded guilty to 48 charges relating to methamphetamine dealing and one charge of offering to supply cannabis. On 10 July 2012 she was sentenced by Toogood J to five years, six months’ imprisonment.[1]
[1] R v Clunie HC Whangarei CRI-2012-088-2612, 10 July 2012.
This is an appeal against sentence. The appeal is advanced on the ground that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive because the starting point was too high, the uplift for offending while on bail and the cannabis charge was excessive, and no credit was permitted for personal mitigating factors.

Background

In February 2010 the Northland police carried out “Operation Penny”, an investigation targeted at suspected dealers, manufacturers and cultivators of illicit drugs. Among the evidence collected in the course of that investigation was data taken from the cellphones of identified offenders. Analysis of that data, and data obtained as a result of subsequent search warrants on telecommunication providers, revealed the existence of a large organised group in the Whangarei area involved in the distribution of methamphetamine. A number of those suspected of involvement in this group had links to the Head Hunters Outlaw Motorcycle Gang.
This information gave rise to a further investigation, known as “Operation Arabia”. The focus of that investigation was the identification of drug dealing transactions conducted by text message communication in the Whangarei area. As part of the investigation, search warrants were executed in respect of two cellphone numbers later found to belong to the appellant. The historical data from those phones included a number of text messages relating to the sale and supply of methamphetamine. Consequently, the appellant was arrested on 17 June 2010.
At the time of her arrest the appellant was carrying a small plastic container. Inside the container was a total of 0.428 grams of methamphetamine, six snap-lock bags containing methamphetamine residue, and 53 empty snap-lock bags.
The appellant was released from prison on bail on 9 March 2011. Between June 2011 and September 2011 she was the subject of a further police operation named “Operation Beema”. The execution of another search warrant in respect of her cellphone uncovered further incriminating text messages.
The charges to which the appellant pleaded guilty covering the periods of both operations were: offer to supply methamphetamine (x 35); supply of methamphetamine (x 5); conspiracy to supply methamphetamine (x 7); possession of methamphetamine for supply (x 1); and offer to supply cannabis (x 1). She pleaded guilty after committal for trial in the District Court and on the second day of trial in the High Court.
The appellant was sentenced on the basis that the…

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 Clunie v R

Details

AGLC: Clunie v R [2013] NZCA 110
Case: [2013] NZCA 110
Decision Date: 18 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Alison Elizabeth Clunie v The Queen, the appellant contested the sentence of five years, six months’ imprisonment imposed by Toogood J, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. Clunie pleaded guilty to numerous charges related to methamphetamine dealing and one charge of offering to supply cannabis. The sentence was based on the involvement of approximately 36 grams of methamphetamine and 28 grams of cannabis. Clunie argued that the starting point was too high, the uplift for her offending while on bail and the cannabis charge was excessive, and no credit was allowed for personal mitigating factors. The Crown contended that the starting point was appropriate and the uplift for the cannabis charge and offending while on bail was justified. The court found that the starting point was not manifestly excessive and that the uplift for the cannabis charge and offending while on bail was appropriate. The court also found that there was no basis to reduce the sentence for Clunie's attempts to rehabilitate, given the seriousness of her offending.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the sentence imposed by Toogood J was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the starting point of five years, six months’ imprisonment was appropriate, taking into account Clunie's role and culpability in the methamphetamine dealing. The court also found that the uplift for the cannabis charge and offending while on bail was justified, as it reflected the disregard for court processes. The court further found that there was no basis to reduce the sentence for Clunie's attempts to rehabilitate, given the seriousness of her offending. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that the appeal must be dismissed.

Orders