Drummond v Police - [2012] NZHC 833

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI 2012-463-0017 [2012] NZHC 833

BETWEEN MONTOYA ARTHUR RONALD DRUMMOND
Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 30 April 2012

Counsel: R O Gowing for Appellant
R Jenson for Respondent

Judgment: 30 April 2012

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Gowing & Co, Whakatane
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

DRUMMOND V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC TAU CRI 2012-463-0017 [30 April 2012]

The appeal

[1] Following pleas of guilty, on 9 February 2012 Mr Drummond appeared before the District Court at Opotiki for sentence on one charge of manufacturing the Class A controlled drug, methamphetamine, one of possessing a precursor substance for the purpose of manufacture and one of possession of equipment for its use, namely a pipe.

[2] Concurrent sentences of imprisonment were imposed on the manufacturing and precursor charges. That resulted in an effective term of imprisonment of two years and nine months. On the possession charge, Mr Drummond was convicted and discharged.

[3] Mr Drummond appeals against the effective term of imprisonment imposed by Judge Wolff. He contends that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

Facts

[4] The charges arose from information gathered by Police in the course of executing a search warrant at Mr Drummond’s home, in Brabant Street, Opotiki. The warrant was executed in March 2011. On arrival at the property, police officers located Mr Drummond at the rear of it. He was said to be “in a somewhat flustered state”. When searched, police officers located two quarter gram bags of methamphetamine and four point bags. They were hidden in a sock. A case containing $678 in cash was found up a trouser leg.

[5] A search of the premises ensued. In the laundry and kitchen areas, various items were located which were consistent with the manufacture of methamphetamine. On the laundry shelf was a clear 330ml bottle, about one quarter full, containing a cloudy liquid. There was an angled piece of glass tubing attached to the top of the bottle with white tape. The liquid was found to be a compound commonly used in pharmaceutical products containing pseudoephedrine, an active ingredient in methamphetamine.

[6] On the same shelf, a plastic Powerade bottle was located. It contained a clear liquid, later analysed as acetone, a product used in the process of manufacturing methamphetamine. Acetone is a precursor substance for the purposes of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

[7] In a kitchen cupboard, a clear round baking dish wrapped in plastic wrap containing a clear liquid and a crystalline material was located. The end product was analysed as methamphetamine. The liquid was a chemical.

[8] On 26 October 2011, Police stopped Mr Drummond on an unrelated matter. He was subsequently searched pursuant to powers to do so on arrest. In a small bag he was carrying two plastic snap-lock bags and four smaller bags known as point bags were located. Those bags contained 0.7 of a gram of methamphetamine.

[9] When spoken to by the Police on execution of 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 Drummond v Police

Details

AGLC: Drummond v Police [2012] NZHC 833
Case: [2012] NZHC 833
Decision Date: 30 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Drummond v New Zealand Police involves an appeal by Montoya Arthur Ronald Drummond against his sentence for manufacturing methamphetamine, possessing a precursor substance for its manufacture, and possession of equipment for its use. The appeal was heard by Justice Heath in the High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry. Drummond's appeal focused on the excessiveness of his sentence of two years and nine months imprisonment, which he argued was manifestly excessive. Drummond had been found with methamphetamine, precursor substances, and manufacturing equipment during a police search of his home. The District Court had determined that the manufacturing was for commercial purposes, resulting in a starting point of four years imprisonment, but the sentence was reduced to two years and nine months due to an early guilty plea and apparent remorse.

The legal issues before the court were whether the District Court erred in its assessment of the commerciality of Drummond's drug manufacturing activities and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the Crown's argument that the manufacturing was for commercial purposes and Drummond's argument that the manufacturing was for personal use. The court also examined whether the sentence was disproportionately harsh given the circumstances. The High Court found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the manufacturing was for commercial purposes. The court reassessed the sentence, determining that a starting point of three years six months imprisonment was appropriate, leading to a sentence of two years eight months imprisonment, which was not manifestly excessive.

Justice Heath dismissed the appeal, concluding that the District Court's sentence, while on the higher end of the range, was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances and the appropriate starting point determined by the High Court.

Orders