R v Allen - [2016] NZHC 445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-092-005952 [2016] NZHC 445

THE QUEEN

v

GEOFFREY MILTON ALLEN DIONNE VICTORIA POTKINS DHARMENDRA KUMAR NAGHAM JAWAD

Hearing: 15 March 2016

Appearances:

N Fletcher for Crown
T Cooper and F J Igguiden for Mr Allen
C Wilkinson-Smith for Ms Potkins
S Tait for Mr Kumar
M Levett for Ms Jawad

Judgment:

15 March 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF GILBERT J

R v ALLEN & ORS [2016] NZHC 445 [15 March 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Allen, Ms Potkins, Ms Jawad and Mr Kumar, you all appear for sentence today having been convicted of various drug related offending, principally involving methamphetamine.

Mr Allen

[2] Mr Allen, you are to be sentenced in respect of 38 offences. You were found guilty by a jury in relation to 31 of these and you pleaded guilty to the other seven at the commencement of the trial. The offences are as follows:

(a) Thirteen offences of manufacturing methamphetamine. You were found guilty of these offences by the jury. The maximum penalty for each of these offences is life imprisonment.

(b)Two offences of producing pseudoephedrine. You were found guilty of each of these offences by the jury. The maximum penalty for those offences is seven years’ imprisonment.

(c) One offence of possession of precursor substances for the manufacture of methamphetamine, namely pseudoephedrine, sulphuric acid and hydrochloric acid. You pleaded guilty to this offence at the commencement of the trial. The maximum penalty for this offence is five years’ imprisonment.

(d)One offence of possession of materials for the manufacture of methamphetamine, namely sodium hydroxide, iodine, hypophosphorous acid and calcium chloride. You pleaded guilty to this offence at the commencement of the trial. The maximum penalty for this offence is five years’ imprisonment.

(e) One offence of possession of equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine, namely a steam distiller, a boiler, glassware, portable heating stoves and parr bombs. You pleaded guilty to this

offence at the commencement of the trial. The maximum penalty for this offence is five years’ imprisonment.

(f) Fourteen offences of supplying methamphetamine. Seven of these offences were representative charges. You were found guilty of these offences by the jury. The maximum penalty for each of these offences is life imprisonment.

(g)One offence of possession of methamphetamine. You were found guilty of this offence by the jury. The maximum penalty for this offence is six months’ imprisonment.

(h)One offence of supplying GBL (jointly with Ms Potkins). You pleaded guilty to this charge at the commencement of the trial. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years’ imprisonment.

(i)Two offences of possession of GBL for supply (one jointly with Ms Potkins). You pleaded guilty to these charges at the commencement of the trial. The maximum penalty for each of these offences is a term of 14 years’ imprisonment.

(j)One offence of unlawful possession of a firearm. You pleaded guilty to this charge at the commencement of the trial. The maximum penalty for this offence is four years’ imprisonment.

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 Allen

Details

AGLC: R v Allen [2016] NZHC 445
Case: [2016] NZHC 445
Decision Date: 15 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Allen involved the sentencing of four individuals: Geoffrey Milton Allen, Dionne Victoria Potkins, Dharmendra Kumar Nagham Jawad, and Dharmendra Kumar, all convicted of drug-related offences, predominantly involving methamphetamine. The court needed to determine appropriate sentences for each defendant based on their individual roles and the totality of their offending. The court had to establish starting points for the lead offending, apply uplifts or discounts as appropriate, and ensure that the sentences aligned with the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002.

The court established starting points for each defendant, taking into account the nature and extent of their involvement in the drug manufacturing and supply operations. For Mr. Allen, the starting point for methamphetamine manufacturing was set at 16 years, considering his extensive involvement and leadership role. Adjustments were made for other offences, aggravating factors such as prior convictions, and mitigating factors including guilty pleas and efforts at rehabilitation. Ultimately, Mr. Allen was sentenced to 19 years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of ten years. Ms. Potkins, involved in the supply of methamphetamine, received a starting point of four years and six months, adjusted for her lesser role and mitigating factors, resulting in a sentence of three years and eight months. Ms. Jawad, who permitted her premises to be used for drug manufacturing, received a starting point of three years, adjusted for her limited role and mitigating factors, resulting in a sentence of two years and six months. Mr. Kumar, involved in lower-level methamphetamine supply, received a starting point of two years and six months, adjusted for his minimal role and mitigating factors, resulting in a sentence of 12 months’ home detention and 100 hours of community work.

The final orders included the imposition of minimum periods of imprisonment for Mr. Allen, concurrent sentences for all defendants, and specific conditions for Mr. Kumar’s home detention. Additionally, orders were made for the forfeiture of cash and the destruction of drug paraphernalia, firearms, and ammunition.

Orders