R v Black - [2012] NZHC 2902

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2010-009-008952 [2012] NZHC 2902

REGINA

v

ALEXANDER ROBERT BLACK

Counsel: B Hawes and N Robson for Crown
AND Garrett for Prisoner

Judgment: 1 November 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WHATA J

[1] Mr Black, you have pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(a) Conspiracy to manufacture a Class A controlled drug; and

(b) Conspiracy to supply a Class A controlled drug.

[2] The maximum penalty on each charge is 14 years imprisonment.

Facts

[3] Mr Black, you were engaged in a conspiracy to supply and manufacture methamphetamine with several other persons, including Mr Newton, Mr Box and Mr Manuel (on the supply side), and Mr Newton, Mr McKenzie and Mr Situ (on the manufacture side). In terms of the police summaries, to which you have pleaded guilty, Mr Newton is a central figure in those conspiracies. Mr Newton obtained
funds from Mr McKenzie in early 2010 for the purpose of methamphetamine

R V BLACK HC CHCH CRI 2010-009-008952 [1 November 2012]

production and sale. Mr Newton would then source pseudoephedrine-based products and equipment, for example, from Mr Situ. Pseudoephedrine was extracted from these products by you, Mr Linton and Mr Box although you are not facing charges in relation to that aspect. Mr Newton and Mr Box took the precursor substances to the cooks, including Mr Miles and Mr Lee. Mr Smith and Mr Harris were also cooks. Methamphetamine was then manufactured by them, uplifted by Messrs Newton and Box and sold through a distribution network comprising you, Messrs Manuel, Linton and Box. You would receive orders via cell phone, deliver the product and uplift the cash. I also accept the Crown’s view that you assisted Mr Newton on a regular basis, and there are intercepted communications which show that you sold some methamphetamine to third persons. Overall, however, you were under the control of Mr Newton and virtually his employee.

[4] As a result of the police investigation into these activities, five clandestine laboratories were located. A total of 109 gms of methamphetamine was found at four addresses, at a street value of over $100,000. Various types of substances containing pseudoephedrine were also located at four addresses, at a street value of over $100,000. Various types of substances containing pseudoephedrine were also located at four addresses, capable of producing methamphetamine worth between
$216,000 and $306,000. Cash worth $134,855 was also found.

Personal circumstances

[5] You are 29 years old and married with two sons. You have worked a number of jobs, including as a labourer and as a DJ, and you are currently employed as a labourer for a fertiliser company. You separated from your wife for a period due to her methamphetamine addiction but you have since reconciled. It was through her contacts that you became involved in the drug scene and became addicted yourself.

[6] The pre-sentencing report describes your disruptive upbringing, including separation from your mother and father at various points. The report records that you are…

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 Black

Details

AGLC: R v Black [2012] NZHC 2902
Case: [2012] NZHC 2902
Decision Date: 1 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Alexander Robert Black, the defendant pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to manufacture and supply a Class A controlled drug. The maximum penalty for each charge was 14 years imprisonment. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for the defendant's involvement in the drug conspiracies. The court considered the defendant's role in the conspiracy, which was described as a general gofer or employee performing relatively menial tasks on behalf of the central figure, Mr Newton. The court also took into account the defendant's personal circumstances, his limited criminal history, and his motivation to change and rehabilitate. The Crown submitted that a starting point in the vicinity of seven years imprisonment was appropriate, while the defence suggested a starting point in the range of five to six years imprisonment. The court ultimately decided that a starting point of five years imprisonment was appropriate, taking into account the defendant's role in the conspiracy and his personal circumstances. The court allowed a 10% discount for mitigating factors and a 15% discount for the defendant's guilty plea. The defendant was sentenced to three years and nine months imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently.
In summary, the court found the defendant guilty of conspiracy to manufacture and supply a Class A controlled drug and sentenced him to three years and nine months imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. The court took into account the defendant's role in the conspiracy, his personal circumstances, and his motivation to change and rehabilitate in determining the appropriate sentence. The court allowed discounts for mitigating factors and the defendant's guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of three years and nine months imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently.

Orders