Crompton v The Queen - [2015] NZCA 277

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA372/2014
[2015] NZCA 277

BETWEEN	JAYNE CROMPTON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA381/2014
BETWEEN	DEAN FREDERICK THEOBALD Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA393/2014
BETWEEN	MARC HENRY ETHELSTONE Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	18 June 2015
Court:	Stevens, Andrews and Gilbert JJ
Counsel:	P J Kaye for Appellant Crompton C Cull for Appellant Theobald C Muston for Appellant Ethelstone M D Downs for Respondent
Judgment:	26 June 2015 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeals are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Gilbert J)

Introduction

Following a nine week trial before a Judge and jury in the High Court at Whangarei, the appellants, Ms Crompton, her de facto partner, Mr Theobald and her brother, Mr Ethelstone, were found guilty of various drug related offending over the period from February 2010 to May 2012. Methamphetamine was found to have been manufactured during this period at five separate addresses, including rented holiday homes. Precursor substances, materials and equipment consistent with the manufacture of significant quantities of methamphetamine were stored in a 40 foot shipping container and in two rented storage facilities. Firearms and ammunition were also found in connection with the drug dealing operation. The offending continued even after the police executed search warrants on 28 March and 20 September 2011.
The specific charges in respect of which the appellants were found guilty are as follows:

Ms Crompton

·4 x manufacturing methamphetamine
·1 x attempted manufacture of methamphetamine
·2 x possession of methamphetamine for supply
·4 x supplying methamphetamine
·13 x offering to supply methamphetamine
·1 x conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine
·3 x possession of a precursor substance
·5 x possession of equipment
·5 x possession of materials
·3 x possession of a firearm
·1 x possession of an airgun
·2 x possession of ammunition

Mr Theobald

·4 x manufacturing methamphetamine
·2 x possession of methamphetamine for supply
·1 x supplying methamphetamine
·1 x conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine
·3 x possession of a precursor substance
·5 x possession of equipment
·4 x possession of materials
·3 x possession of a firearm
·1 x possession of an airgun
·2 x possession of ammunition
·1 x aggravated assault against a police officer

Ms Ethelstone

·2 x manufacturing methamphetamine
·1 x attempting to manufacture methamphetamine
·1 x possession of methamphetamine for supply
·1 x possession of a precursor substance
·3 x possession of equipment
·3 x possession of materials
·2 x possession of a firearm
·1 x possession of a restricted weapon
·1 x possession of ammunition
·1 x possession of cannabis for supply

Woolford J, who had presided over the trial, sentenced Ms Crompton to 14 years and six months’ imprisonment; Mr Theobald to 13 years and three months’ imprisonment; and Mr Ethelstone to nine years and eight months’ imprisonment. The Judge imposed 50 per cent minimum periods of imprisonment of seven years and three months, six years and seven months and four years and 10 months respectively.[1]
[1]R v Crompton,…

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 Crompton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Crompton v The Queen [2015] NZCA 277
Case: [2015] NZCA 277
Decision Date: 26 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, three appellants—Jayne Crompton, Dean Frederick Theobald, and Marc Henry Ethelstone—challenged the sentences imposed by Woolford J in the High Court at Whangarei. They were convicted of various drug-related offenses, including manufacturing, possessing, and supplying methamphetamine. Crompton and Theobald also faced charges of conspiracy and possession of firearms and ammunition. They argued that their sentences were manifestly excessive, particularly the starting point for their sentences, which was set at twelve years for manufacturing methamphetamine. They contended that the Judge wrongly interpreted text messages to conclude that they had manufactured significantly more methamphetamine than they had. The Court found that the Judge's interpretation was supported by the evidence, and the scale of the drug manufacturing operation was substantial. The Court also found no error in the Judge's decision not to discount the sentences for the appellants' remorse, as no genuine remorse was expressed. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The reasoning of the Court focused on the interpretation of the text messages and the overall assessment of the drug manufacturing operation's scale and commerciality. The Court upheld the Judge's findings regarding the quantities of methamphetamine manufactured, emphasizing that the Judge was best placed to assess the evidence presented during the lengthy trial. The Court further found that the uplift for aggravating factors was appropriately applied, considering the additional charges and the persistent nature of the offending. Finally, the Court agreed with the Judge's decision not to discount for remorse, as the appellants did not express genuine remorse. Therefore, the Court concluded that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeals.

Orders