McDonald v R - [2020] NZHC 1509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-463-181

[2020] NZHC 1509

BETWEEN
LIONEL JAMES RUKA McDONALD

Appellant

AND

THE CROWN

Respondent

Hearing:
Further Submissions:

11 May 2020

15 May 2020 for the Appellant
18 May 2020 for the Respondent

Appearances:

A Schulze for the Appellant

C Macklin for the Respondent

Judgment:

30 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 June 2020 at 4:45 pm

…………………………………………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua
A Schulze, Barrister, Rotorua

McDONALD v R [2020] NZHC 1509 [30 June 2020]

Introduction

[1] Lionel McDonald appeals against a sentence of 13 years’ 9 months’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years, imposed by Judge Hollister-Jones in the District Court at Rotorua on 14 February 2020 in respect of one charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply.1

[2] Mr McDonald does not appeal against the length of the term of imprisonment imposed. Rather, he appeals against the imposition of and in the alternative the length of the minimum period of imprisonment.

Background

[3] Mr McDonald pleaded guilty on the basis of the following summary of facts. On 14 August 2019, the Police searched his vehicle and home. In the vehicle, they found 36.5 kilograms of methamphetamine, packaged into 62 snap lock bags containing varying amounts of the drug. In his home, five cell phones were found, together with a notebook with entries in it that included columns with weights recorded. All five phones were operational – one Mr McDonald described as his regular phone, the others he said he did not know how to unlock.

[4] On 15 August 2019, Mr McDonald’s storage unit was searched, the key to which had been found in his vehicle. In the storage unit were four metal lockers. Keys to three of the lockers were found on the key ring also containing the keys to Mr McDonald’s vehicle.

[5] In the storage unit, the Police found 101 one-kilogram packages of methamphetamine, 99 in Chinese green tea packaging, and two in snap lock bags. Also in the lockers were 25 empty green tea packages similar to 35 empty green tea packages found in Mr McDonald’s garage; the clear inference, the Police say, being that there had been another 60 kilogram-weight packages of methamphetamine in the locker at some point.

[6] The weights of the blocks of methamphetamine found in the storage unit corresponded, the Police identified, to the weights recorded in the notebook found in Mr McDonald’s home.

[7] In all, 137.5 kilograms of methamphetamine was seized, one of the largest seizures to date in New Zealand. The Judge considered that, at street level values prevailing at the time of sentencing, the methamphetamine could have been sold to end users for about $69,000,000.

District Court Decision

[8] Having set out the above facts, Judge Hollister-Jones noted the amount of methamphetamine recovered placed this offending, in terms of the “huge amount” recovered, as amongst…

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 McDonald v R

Details

AGLC: McDonald v R [2020] NZHC 1509
Case: [2020] NZHC 1509
Decision Date: 30 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lionel McDonald appeals against the sentence of 13 years and 9 months' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years, imposed by Judge Hollister-Jones in the Rotorua District Court on 14 February 2020 for possessing methamphetamine for supply. McDonald does not challenge the length of the term of imprisonment imposed, but rather the imposition of and in the alternative the length of the minimum period of imprisonment. The High Court was required to determine whether there was an error in the sentence imposed by the District Court and whether a different sentence should be imposed.

The Court found that the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment was necessary to hold McDonald accountable for the harm done to the victim and the community, denounce his conduct, and deter others from committing similar offences. The Court noted that McDonald was involved in the supply of one of the largest quantities of methamphetamine in New Zealand's history, which caused an inordinate level of potential social harm and was at the upper end of band 5 in Zhang v R. While McDonald had excellent personal circumstances and demonstrated genuine remorse, the Court found that the purposes of accountability, denunciation, and deterrence required a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 50 per cent of the end sentence.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the District Court. The Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle and that the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years was necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing listed in s 86(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002. The Court also found that the sentence was consistent with the approach adopted in similar cases involving large quantities of methamphetamine.

Orders