Donaldson v Donaldson - [2015] NZHC 3093

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-088-1927 [2015] NZHC 3093

THE QUEEN

v

SHANE KARL RAYNOR LEGG

Hearing: 4 December 2015

Appearances:

M B Smith for the Crown
C Muston for the Defendant

Date:

4 December 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF THOMAS J

Solicitors:
MWIS, Whangarei.

Counsel:
C Muston, Whangarei.

R v SHANE KARL RAYNOR LEGG [2015] NZHC 3093 [4 December 2015]

[1] Mr Legg, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply, the maximum penalty being a sentence of life imprisonment.

Facts

[2] The amount of methamphetamine located at your home was 2.5 grams.

[3] The facts are as follows. Early in the morning on 22 July 2014, the Police executed a search warrant at an address where you were residing in Whangarei. There was some delay before anybody came to the door causing the Police to enter by force. Present at the address were you, your co-offender, Mr Kingi, who has already been sentenced, an associate of you both and your parents.

[4] In your bedroom, the Police located a CCTV camera surveillance system. The monitor showed a split level screen with four different camera views of the rear, the rear deck, driveway and front yard of the property. The Police analysed the surveillance footage which showed numerous visitors arriving and leaving the address.

[5] In their search of the lounge area, the Police located a plastic bag. In that plastic bag were three separate pouches or containers, each containing a small amount of crystals. There were also seven new unused small plastic snaplock bags. Furthermore, the Police located in that same plastic bag two straws, an empty plastic bag, and a used glass pipe (commonly used for smoking methamphetamine).

[6] The ESR conducted an analysis of the crystalline substance located in the pouches and bags to which I have referred. In the first was a substance commonly used as a cutting agent by methamphetamine dealers weighing six grams. In the second, was 250 milligrams of a substance containing methamphetamine and in the third, 2.2 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine.

[7] In the lounge area, the Police also located a set of sensitive digital scales capable of weighing parts of a gram consistent with the distribution of methamphetamine. In your wallet was approximately $1,800 in cash.

[8] In your bedroom, the Police located another glass pipe commonly used to smoke methamphetamine and a second set of digital scales. In the lounge area, the Police also found a number of empty unused snaplock bags and a number of bags containing what appeared to be methamphetamine residue.

[9] I have already referred to Mr Kingi, who was at your address that day. He pleaded guilty and has been sentenced to six years’ imprisonment on charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition.

Personal circumstances

[10] I turn to your personal circumstances, Mr Legg. I have read the pre-sentence report and a letter…

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 Donaldson v Donaldson

Details

AGLC: Donaldson v Donaldson [2015] NZHC 3093
Case: [2015] NZHC 3093
Decision Date: 4 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Shane Karl Raynor Legg, was sentenced for possessing methamphetamine for supply. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge, with the maximum penalty being life imprisonment. The case was heard by Thomas J in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The legal issues the court had to decide included the appropriate starting point for sentencing under R v Fatu, the effect of the defendant's significant physical health challenges on the sentence, and the legitimacy of the cash found on the defendant at the time of his arrest. The court reasoned that the starting point for the defendant's sentence was two and a half years’ imprisonment, taking into account the harm to the community, premeditation, and commerciality of the offence. The court acknowledged the defendant's significant physical health challenges and the rehabilitative steps he had taken while remanded in custody, reducing the starting point to 26 months’ imprisonment. The court gave full credit for the defendant's guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment. The court decided not to impose any special conditions on the defendant's release from prison, considering it inevitable that he would follow medical advice and refrain from any involvement with illegal substances if he focused on proper recovery.

The court ordered the forfeiture of $19,047 cash located at the defendant's address, as the defendant did not dispute the Crown's application. The court allowed the defendant an opportunity to present evidence on the legitimacy of the $1,828.40 found in his wallet and dismissed the remaining charges as the Crown offered no evidence.

Orders