R v Alcock - [2015] NZHC 984

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2013-088-001724 [2015] NZHC 984

THE QUEEN

v

MATHEW RAYMOND ELLIS ALCOCK

Hearing: 6 May 2015

Counsel:

N J Dore for Crown
M Pecotic for Defendant

Judgment:

6 May 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF ASHER J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei.
M Pecotic, Auckland.

R v ALCOCK [2015] NZHC 984 [6 May 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mr Alcock, you appear today for sentence having pleaded guilty to seven charges. The charges which I will discuss in detail shortly are possession of a precursor substance, possession of materials, possession of equipment, theft, receiving and two charges of unlawful possession of a firearm.

Background

[2] The charges have arisen from an investigation by the Police which has been code named “Operation Firebird”. It was intended to investigate your activities and some others. There was covert surveillance of your rural property at Maromaku where you lived, and there was call data obtained relating to the use of your telephone. Ultimately your property and that of your neighbour, William Croft, was searched.

[3] Various items were found in your property, and it is these discoveries which had led to the laying of the charges. I will now summarise the charges and what was found. I use the numbers from the amended indictment that was filed. The Crown has not proceeded with the other counts not listed.

[4] In relation to this and other drugs counts there was to be expert evidence and a disputed fact hearing. However, the issues between the Crown and the defence were resolved 6 May 2015 when that disputed facts hearing was due to take place and I now proceed on an agreed basis in relation to these facts.

Count 3: possession of a precursor substance

[5] On this charge the amount discovered was 47 litres of toluene contained in four 20 litre containers. The toluene containers were found in bush areas and not in the house. The toluene, had it been used with the other necessary substances, could have resulted in the manufacture of 600 to 1200 grams of methamphetamine.

[6] Also discovered was a bucket container two plastic bags. Inside those plastic bags was a pseudoephedrine paste weighing approximately 28 grams (the exact

amount is not known as the solids were not quantified). The pseudoephedrine, if it was pure pseudoephedrine and if used with the appropriate materials, could have given rise to 17 grams of methamphetamine. Given that it is not shown that this was all pure pseudoephedrine the yield may have been less.

[7] I am not asked by the defence to put to one side the finding of the pseudoephedrine for this reason, but Ms Pecotic does submit that it should not be assumed that 17 grams of methamphetamine would have been the necessary consequence of the pseudoephedrine having been used for manufacture.

Count 4: possession of materials

[8] A container with 17 grams of iodine was found. If iodine was used with other necessary materials to manufacture methamphetamine, the amount…

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 R v Alcock

Details

AGLC: R v Alcock [2015] NZHC 984
Case: [2015] NZHC 984
Decision Date: 6 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Alcock, the defendant, Mathew Raymond Ellis Alcock, appeared before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing on seven charges: possession of a precursor substance, possession of materials, possession of equipment, theft, receiving stolen property, and unlawful possession of firearms. The charges stemmed from an investigation by the Police codenamed "Operation Firebird," which involved surveillance of Alcock's property and the subsequent search of his premises. Various items were found on Alcock's property, including chemicals and equipment that could be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine, stolen surveillance equipment, a stolen fuel tanker, and two firearms.

The legal issues the court had to decide included the appropriate starting points for each charge, the principle of totality in sentencing, and the mitigating factors that should be considered for Alcock. The Crown argued for a starting point of two to two and a half years for the possession of a precursor substance, while the defense suggested 18 months. For the possession of materials and equipment charges, the Crown proposed starting points of 12 to 15 months and two years, respectively, while the defense suggested shorter periods. The court also had to determine the appropriate sentences for the theft, receiving stolen property, and unlawful possession of firearms charges.

The court's reasoning and outcome involved a detailed analysis of each charge, considering the quantity and type of substances and equipment found, as well as the nature of the firearms. The court fixed starting points for each charge, taking into account the totality principle and the seriousness of the offenses. The court also considered personal mitigating factors, such as Alcock's guilty plea, time spent on restrictive bail, and his character and remorse. Despite these factors, the court found that Alcock's criminal record and continued unlawful activities warranted a custodial sentence.

The final orders of the court were that Alcock was sentenced to two years and nine months' imprisonment for the possession of a precursor substance, six months' imprisonment for possession of materials, 15 months' imprisonment for possession of equipment, three months' imprisonment for theft, six months' imprisonment for receiving stolen property, one month imprisonment for unlawful possession of a firearm (cumulative), and nine months' imprisonment for the second unlawful possession of a firearm charge. The two operating sentences were two years and nine months' imprisonment for the possession of a precursor substance and one month imprisonment for unlawful possession of a firearm. The court expressed hope that Alcock would turn his life around and not appear in court again.

Orders