R v Chanthawong - [2022] NZHC 1623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI 2020-019-006031

[2022] NZHC 1623

THE QUEEN

v

PHRASIT CHANTHAWONG

Hearing: 08 July 2022

Appearances:

K Whyte for the Crown

T Sutcliffe for the Mr Chanthawong

Sentencing:

8 July 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF VAN BOHEMEN J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Thomas Sutcliffe, Barrister, Hamilton

R v CHANTHAWONG [Sentencing Notes] [2022] NZHC 1623 [8 July 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Chanthawong, you appear today for sentencing having pleaded guilty on 17 May 2022 1 to five charges of supplying methamphetamine.2

[2]The maximum penalty for supplying methamphetamine is life imprisonment.3

[3] You also face a sixth charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.4 The Crown has not offered evidence on that charge and invites me to dismiss it under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. I do so accordingly.

[4] My responsibility today is to sentence you for the five charges of supplying methamphetamine to which you have pleaded guilty.

[5]This is the process I will follow:

(a)First, I will outline the circumstances of your offending;

(b)Secondly, I will consider your personal circumstances relevant to the sentence;

(a)Thirdly, I will explain the approach to setting the sentence and discuss the requirements of the Sentencing Act 2002 as they apply in this case and in accordance with decisions of the Court of Appeal;

(b)Finally, I will impose the sentence I consider appropriate.

The offending

[6] Mr Chanthawong, you were charged in relation to Operation Oakville, a Police investigation into the large-scale distribution of methamphetamine and other drugs in the Waikato, Auckland and Wellington.

1      R v Chanthawong HC Hamilton CRI-2020-019-6031, 17 May 2022.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c).
3      Section 6(2)(a).
4      Section 6(1)(f).

[7] Police identified Mark Griffiths to be the leader of the operation. Mr Griffiths is a senior member of the Mongrol Mob Waikato Kingdom. Mr Griffiths worked closely with his partner and co-defendant, Sharon Marfell, in overseeing the activity of the wider group. Mr Griffiths and Ms Marfell were directly involved in obtaining large quantities of Class A and B drugs from several different sources. They distributed the drugs among other members of the group to on-sell.

[8] Mr Chanthawong, you were based in Auckland and were one of Mr Griffiths’ and Ms Marfell’s sources of methamphetamine. On five separate occasions between 19 September 2020 and 12 November 2020, you supplied Mr Griffiths and Ms Marfell with commercial quantities of the drug from your Auckland residence.

[9] The covert aspect of the investigation terminated on 12 November 2020 immediately following your fifth and final supply of methamphetamine.

[10]The Police arrested you on 12 January 2021 and you were held in custody.

[11] You were on parole at the time of your arrest for other serious drug offending. On 5 February 2021, you were recalled to prison. You have been serving out your previous sentence since then.

[12] On 17 May 2022, you pleaded guilty to the five charges…

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 Chanthawong

Details

AGLC: R v Chanthawong [2022] NZHC 1623
Case: [2022] NZHC 1623
Decision Date: 8 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phrasit Chanthawong was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for supplying methamphetamine. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for Chanthawong, considering the nature and scale of his offending, his personal circumstances, and the statutory objectives of sentencing. The court followed a two-stage process in determining the sentence, first setting an appropriate starting point based on the guidelines provided by the Court of Appeal for methamphetamine-related offending. The court then adjusted the starting point to account for any aggravating or mitigating personal circumstances and Chanthawong's guilty plea.

The court found that Chanthawong supplied a total of at least 488.1 grams of methamphetamine and played a significant role in the offending. The court imposed a starting point of nine and a half years' imprisonment, considering the quantity of drugs supplied, his role in the offending, and relevant case law. The court adjusted the starting point to account for aggravating and mitigating personal circumstances, including Chanthawong's guilty plea, cultural factors, and his prior offending while on parole. The court imposed a sentence of seven years and five months' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of three years and four months.

The court also ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the methamphetamine seized from Chanthawong, as requested by the Crown. This decision highlights the importance of considering the broader social harm caused by drug offending and the need for appropriate deterrence and denunciation.

Orders