R v Clifford - [2012] NZHC 3534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2010-019-2006 [2012] NZHC 3534

THE QUEEN

v

TIMOTHY ANDREW CLIFFORD

Hearing: 19 December 2012

Counsel: R G Douch for Crown
D P H Jones QC for Prisoner

Judgment: 19 December 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R V TIMOTHY ANDREW CLIFFORD HC HAM CRI-2010-019-2006 [19 December 2012]

[1] Mr Clifford, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty on 27 July

2012 to ten charges. Six of those charges relate to methamphetamine and/or precursor substances and materials. The remaining four charges relate to firearms.

[2] You pleaded guilty following a sentence indication hearing that I conducted on 20 July 2012. The delay in sentencing you has been caused by the fact that your counsel and the Crown endeavoured to work through the procedure by which an instrument forfeiture order could be made in respect of the properties on which the offending occurred. That has not been possible, and as a consequence the Crown has not elected to proceed with the instrument forfeiture application.

[3] Sentencing needed to be deferred to allow counsel to work through those issues, because if an instrument forfeiture order had been made, it would have had an impact on the sentence imposed on you today. I am now required, however, to impose sentence without regard to forfeiture issues.

The facts

[4] I canvassed the facts giving rise to your offending reasonably fully in my sentence indication remarks. Those remarks will be annexed as an appendix to these sentencing remarks, and I do not propose to repeat them here.

[5] In short, you were involved in the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine between 1999 and 2009. In the course of your activities, you stockpiled significant quantities of valuable precursor substances and materials. When your property was searched, the police also found no fewer than four firearms.

[6] The sentencing process was complicated in your case by the fact that on 30

May 2003, methamphetamine was reclassified from being a Class B controlled drug to being a Class A controlled drug. As a consequence, the maximum penalty for the offence went from 14 years imprisonment to life imprisonment. I was required to assess the extent to which your offending occurred prior to 30 May 2003, and to apply the appropriate sentence in respect of that offending. I then needed to have

regard to the offending that occurred after 30 May 2003, in order to assess the appropriate penalty for that.

[7] I applied a starting point of 11 and a half years imprisonment in respect of offending that occurred prior to 30 May 2003. I then applied an uplift to reflect offending after that date. I then added an uplift of six months imprisonment in relation to the firearms charges, and a further six month uplift to reflect your previous firearms and drug-related convictions.

[8] This led to an end starting point of 16 and a half years imprisonment before taking into account mitigating factors personal to you. I…

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 Clifford

Details

AGLC: R v Clifford [2012] NZHC 3534
Case: [2012] NZHC 3534
Decision Date: 19 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Clifford involved the sentencing of Timothy Andrew Clifford on ten charges related to methamphetamine and firearms. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Clifford, considering factors such as the seriousness of the offending, the impact of his guilty pleas, and his efforts at rehabilitation. The court applied a starting point of 11 and a half years imprisonment for offending prior to the reclassification of methamphetamine, and an uplift of four years for offending after that date. An additional uplift of six months was applied for the firearms charges, and another six months for Clifford's previous drug-related convictions. This resulted in an end starting point of 16 and a half years imprisonment. After considering mitigating factors such as Clifford's guilty pleas and his rehabilitation efforts, the court reduced the sentence by four months, resulting in a final sentence of 12 years four months imprisonment. The court also noted that Clifford would be viewed as a high-level drug manufacturer and dealer, and a minimum term of imprisonment could be imposed if he appeared again on similar charges.

Orders