R v Berkland

Case [2018] NZHC 1520


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CRI-2017-091-000902

[2018] NZHC 1520

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM ALLAN BERKLAND

Counsel;

E M Light for Crown

C W J Stevenson for Defendant

Sentence:

22 June 2018


NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J


Introduction

[1]Mr Berkland, you appear for sentence in relation to 14 charges:

(1)one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine;1

(2)one representative charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply;2

(3)two charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply;3


1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a); and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(2); maximum penalty life imprisonment.

2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a); and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(2); maximum penalty life imprisonment.

3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a); and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(2); maximum penalty life imprisonment.

R v BERKLAND [2018] NZHC 1520 [22 June 2018]

(4)two representative charges of offering to supply methamphetamine;4

(5)one charge of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine;5

(6)one representative charge of supplying NBOMe (a Class B controlled drug – sometimes described as a “psychedelic” drug);6

(7)one representative charge of offering to supply NBOMe;7

(8)one representative charge of possession of NBOMe for supply;8

(9)one charge of possession of cannabis for supply;9

(10)one charge relating to the possession of Diazepam for supply;10

(11)one charge of cultivating cannabis;11

(12)one representative charge of unlawfully possessing a firearm;12

(13)one representative charge of unlawfully possessing ammunition;13 and

(14)one representative charge of unlawfully possessing a taser.14

[2]        You pleaded guilty to these charges following a sentence indication on 20 April 2018.15


4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a); maximum penalty life imprisonment.

5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2A)(a); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

6      Sections 6(1)(c) and (2)(b); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

7      Sections 6(1)(c) and (2)(b); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

8      Sections 6(1)(f) and (2)(b); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

9      Sections 6(1)(f) and (2)(c); maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.

10     Sections 6(1)(f) and (2)(c); maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.

11     Sections 9(1) and (2); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

12     Arms Act 1983, s 45; and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(2); maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment.

13     Arms Act 1983, s 45; and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(2); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.

14     Arms Act 1983, s 50; and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(2); maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment.

15     R v Berkland [2018] NZHC 753.

[3]This afternoon I shall:

(1)set out your offending;

(2)outline the appropriate starting point for that offending;

(3)explain the adjustments that may be made to the starting point; and

(4)provide you with your final sentence.

Offending

[4]        The charges result from a police operation code-named “Operation Walnut” which commenced in November 2016. That investigation targeted the commercial supply of methamphetamine in the Wellington region.

[5]        A surveillance device warrant allowed police to intercept private communications and carry out visual surveillance of two principal targets, yourself and Mr Blance. You…

Continue reading R v Berkland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Berkland [2018] NZHC 1520
Case
[2018] NZHC 1520
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Collins J handed down a sentence in the case of the Queen v William Allan Berkland, who had pleaded guilty to 14 charges related to drug supply and possession. The court had to determine the appropriate starting point for the sentence, consider adjustments based on aggravating and mitigating factors, and decide on the final sentence. The court found that Berkland was deeply involved in a sophisticated drug operation, supplying large quantities of methamphetamine and other drugs, and had significant responsibilities within the organisation. The court set a starting point of 16 and a half years' imprisonment for the methamphetamine charges, and an additional uplift for other related charges. After considering personal mitigating factors and the guilty plea, the court imposed a sentence of 13 years and three months' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years and six months. The court also ordered the destruction of property used in the drug offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.