R v Bate - [2014] NZHC 237

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-000225 [2014] NZHC 237

THE QUEEN

v

NICHOLAS STUART BATE

Charge: Permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine

Plea: Appearances:

Guilty

D Robinson for Crown

H Leabourn for Prisoner

Sentenced: 21 February 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
H Leabourn, Auckland

R v BATE [2014] NZHC 237 [21 February 2014]

[1] Nicholas Stuart Bate, having pleaded guilty to one charge of permitting your premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine you are for sentence this morning.

[2] Between 29 November 2011 and 1 December 2011 a number of offenders were in possession of a factory at Culperry Road, Glendene, Auckland. That factory was tenanted by you and at the time you lived there with your partner. At the time your partner was recently pregnant. You were under financial pressure and you agreed to allow the defendants, one in particular you knew, Mr Kevin Fisiihoi and his associates to manufacture methamphetamine in exchange for the payment of some money. The agreement was that you would be paid $500 up front and a further
$4,500 after the manufacture was complete. On the evening of 29 November 2011 the other defendants took possession of the property and you left.

[3] During the course of their manufacturing operations there was an explosion at the address on 1 December 2011. As a result of the explosion one of the defendants was seriously burnt and ultimately required admission to Middlemore Hospital. The police and fire service attended the scene. Two days after the incident you received a text message saying you were to receive $5,000 and would be paid a further $10,000 the following Thursday. At the earlier hearing Mr Leabourn’s instructions were that those moneys were never paid. Given the sequence of events I have outlined I accept that as likely to be correct.

[4] In your case the Crown submit a starting point for sentence of between two and two and a half years is appropriate but that you were entitled to a discount for a guilty plea. The Crown acknowledges that in the circumstances the Court could consider home detention as an appropriate sentence. Mr Leabourn at the earlier hearing argued strenuously for such a sentence, which I indicated might be appropriate if you received a positive pre-sentence report.

[5] However, in sentencing you the first stage for the Court is to fix an appropriate starting point that reflects the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act and your culpability in this particular case. The sentence the Court imposes must hold you responsible for your offending and address your culpability. It is also

directed at ensuring that you acknowledge your responsibility and to address the issue of drug offending in this community. Obviously people who make premises available to others to manufacture methamphetamine enable the drug to be produced and distributed through our society.

[6] There are three cases in particular that have some relevance…

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 Bate

Details

AGLC: R v Bate [2014] NZHC 237
Case: [2014] NZHC 237
Decision Date: 21 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nicholas Stuart Bate was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand after pleading guilty to permitting his premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine. The court heard that between 29 November and 1 December 2011, Bate allowed his property in Glendene, Auckland, to be used by others for methamphetamine production in exchange for monetary payment. The manufacturing operation resulted in an explosion that seriously injured one of the offenders involved. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate starting point for Bate's sentence, taking into account his culpability and the need to address the issue of drug offending within the community. The Crown proposed a starting point of two to two and a half years' imprisonment, while the defence argued for home detention based on a positive pre-sentence report.

The court found Bate's circumstances to be more serious than previous cases, as he knowingly engaged in the agreement to manufacture methamphetamine for financial gain. The court set a starting point of two years and six months' imprisonment. Personal mitigating factors, such as Bate's remorse, positive changes in his life, and efforts to distance himself from previous associates, were considered. The court granted a two-month credit for these positive aspects and applied a 25% reduction for the guilty plea, resulting in a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment. Given the positive pre-sentence report and the steps Bate had taken to turn his life around, the court deemed home detention to be an appropriate sentence.

In conclusion, Bate was sentenced to 10 months of home detention, with specific conditions including compliance with electronic monitoring, abstaining from alcohol and illicit drugs, and avoiding association with previous associates or co-accused. The court emphasized the importance of Bate remaining drug-free and distancing himself from drug-using individuals to successfully reintegrate into the community and fulfill his role as a father.

Orders