Legal Research
Cases
R v Blance

R v Blance

Case [2018] NZHC 1518 22 June 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

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 1518

THE QUEEN

v

STEVEN ALBERT BLANCE

Counsel; E M Light for Crown E A Hall for Defendant

Sentence:

22 June 2018

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1]Mr Blance, you appear for sentence on the following 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 BLANCE [2018] NZHC 1518 [22 June 2018]

(4)two charges of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine;4

(5)one representative charge of unlawfully possessing a firearm;5

(6)one representative charge of unlawfully possessing ammunition;6

(7)one representative charge of unlawfully possessing a taser;7 and

(8)one charge of receiving stolen property.8

[2] You pleaded guilty to these charges after I gave you a sentence indication on 20 April 2018.9

[3]This afternoon I will:

(1)set out your offending;

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

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

(4)give you 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, you and

4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2A)(a); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
5      Arms Act 1983, s 45; and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(2); maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment.
6      Arms Act 1983, s 45; and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(2); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
7      Arms Act 1983, s 50; and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(2); maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment.
8      Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 247; maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
9      R v Blance [2018] NZHC 752.

Mr Berkland. You were purchasing kilogram quantities of methamphetamine from Auckland-based suppliers. You and Mr Berkland would then on-supply the methamphetamine to a number of associates in your distribution networks. Most of the offending took place at an address in Coates Street, Tawa. Associates would then on-supply the methamphetamine to others.

[6]You were in charge of this operation.

[7] The Coates Street address was heavily fortified. It included reinforced street doors, purpose made hiding cavities and a sophisticated CCTV system. There was also an electric beam sensor installed to alert you of any visitors on the car pad outside the address. You regularly operated a drone as part of your surveillance measures. You also had a network of informants in the wider Tawa area,…

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 Blance

Details

AGLC: R v Blance [2018] NZHC 1518
Case: [2018] NZHC 1518
Decision Date: 22 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Blance involved the defendant, Steven Albert Blance, who was convicted of multiple drug-related charges and other offenses. Blance pleaded guilty to charges including supplying and possessing methamphetamine for supply, conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, and unlawfully possessing a firearm, ammunition, and a taser. The offenses stemmed from a police operation targeting methamphetamine supply in the Wellington region. Blance was the mastermind behind a sophisticated drug operation involving large-scale supply and distribution of methamphetamine, with an estimated profit exceeding $1.5 million. The court had to determine an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the severity and scale of the offenses, Blance's role, and relevant legal precedents.

The court identified several aggravating factors, including the significant premeditation and planning involved, the large quantities of methamphetamine supplied, the commercial gain, and Blance's previous convictions. The court compared Blance's case to similar cases involving large-scale methamphetamine supply and importation, determining a starting point of 18 years' imprisonment. An additional year was added to account for the firearms and dishonesty charges, resulting in a total starting point of 19 years' imprisonment. After considering mitigating factors such as Blance's health issues, cognitive impairment, and early steps towards rehabilitation, the court applied a six-month discount. Blance's guilty plea, entered after a significant delay, resulted in a further discount of four years. The court also imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years and three months.

In summary, Blance was sentenced to 14 years and six months' imprisonment for the methamphetamine charges, 10 years for the conspiracy charges, and one year for the firearms and receiving stolen property charges, with all sentences to be served concurrently. Additionally, a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years and three months was imposed on the primary methamphetamine charge. The court ordered the destruction of all drug-related items and firearms seized during the investigation.

Orders