R v Chase - [2018] NZHC 1022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2012-004-014761

[2018] NZHC 1022

THE QUEEN

v

CHRISTOPHER ARTHUR ROGER CHASE

CRI-2012-004-014896

THE QUEEN

v

CRAIG WILLIAMS

Hearing: 10 May 2018

Appearances:

B Northwood for Crown

R Mansfield and S Lack for Defendants

Judgment:

10 May 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland Counsel: R M Mansfield, Auckland

R v CHASE [2018] NZHC 1022 [10 May 2018]

[1] Mr Chase and Williams you may remain seated. I will tell you when you need to stand. As I indicated I propose to discuss briefly some background common to you both, then to deal with you Mr Chase and then after that to deal with Mr Williams. When I have dealt with you Mr Chase you may stand down when I will tell you to.

[2] Christopher Chase and Craig Williams you are both for sentence today in relation to serious drug offending.

[3] Mr Chase you are for sentence on nine charges of importing a Class C controlled drug, one charge of possession of a Class C controlled drug analogue for sale, one charge of conspiracy to import, and one charge of selling a Class C controlled drug. In total terms you imported approximately 16.84 kilograms of the Class C controlled drugs. You also conspired to import further consignments of illegal drugs. The maximum penalty for the conspiracy charge is seven years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the other charges is eight years’ imprisonment in each case. You are currently serving an effective sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment for other drug offending.

[4] Mr Williams you are for sentence on two charges of money laundering and one charge of conspiring to import a controlled drug. The maximum sentence for each charge is seven years’ imprisonment.

[5] The background to the offending and the criminal process you have been involved in is somewhat complicated and involves more than one police investigation. The offending relates to your involvement in the business or activity known as London Underground.

[6] Mr Chase you were the instigator or ringleader of London Underground. The business engaged in the distribution of party pills. In addition to legal highs, London Underground distributed pills containing a controlled drug analogue, 4-MEC, which mimicked MDMA (Ecstasy).

[7] Mr Chase you in particular were heavily involved in the marketing and distribution of that controlled drug analogue. Following a police operation which terminated in November 2011 both of you, together with a number of others, were ultimately arrested.

[8] On 14 August 2014 Mr Chase you were convicted following trial by jury on 14 counts of importing, selling and possessing for sale, 4-MEC powders and pills, imported and distributed for and on behalf of London Underground. You had asserted you believed the powders and pills contained 4-MMC (also known as mephedrone) rather than 4-MEC. However the jury found that both 4-MEC and 4-MMC were controlled drug analogues and a number of other defendants…

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 Chase

Details

AGLC: R v Chase [2018] NZHC 1022
Case: [2018] NZHC 1022
Decision Date: 10 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard the cases of Christopher Arthur Roger Chase and Craig Williams, who were both involved in serious drug offenses. Chase was charged with nine counts of importing a Class C controlled drug, possession of a Class C controlled drug analogue for sale, conspiracy to import, and selling a Class C controlled drug. Williams was charged with two counts of money laundering and conspiracy to import a controlled drug. Both defendants were associated with the London Underground business, which distributed party pills and controlled drug analogues. The court considered various factors in sentencing, including culpability, the seriousness of the offenses, and the need for consistency with sentences imposed on similar offenders.

Chase, as the principal instigator of the drug operation, was found to have a high level of culpability. The court took into account his lengthy criminal history, his continued involvement in drug activities while on bail for previous offenses, and the sophistication of the operation. The court imposed a sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment for the current charges, to be served concurrently with his existing sentence of ten years, resulting in an effective sentence of twelve and a half years for all offenses. Williams, who played a supporting role in the drug operation and was not primarily motivated by personal gain, received a sentence of twelve months' home detention. The court considered his lack of previous convictions, his efforts to rehabilitate himself, and the delay in the prosecution of the case. The sentences imposed by the court aimed to denounce the offenses, provide deterrence, and ensure consistency with sentences imposed on other offenders involved in the same criminal activities.

Orders