R v Clunie - [2013] NZHC 2689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2012-088-001542 [2013] NZHC 2689

THE QUEEN

v

ALISON ELIZABETH CLUNIE

Hearing: 14 October 2013

Counsel: BM O'Connor for the Crown
JW Watson for the accused

Judgment: 14 October 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF ASHER J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei. JW Watson, Whangarei.

R v CLUNIE [2013] NZHC 2689 [14 October 2013]

Introduction

[1] This morning, Alison Elizabeth Clunie pleaded guilty to eight counts of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, one of offering to supply methamphetamine, and two counts of conspiracy to supply materials. I am sentencing her today, the same day that she entered her pleas. I will now set out the unusual sequence of events that has led to this situation arising.

Background

[2] In 2010, Northland Police conducted a police operation known as Operation Arabia targeting methamphetamine offending by a particular group whom the Police say were members or associates of the Headhunters outlaw motorcycle gang. As a consequence of this investigation, Ms Clunie was arrested and charged with methamphetamine offending. She was granted bail on 9 March 2011. Following her release on bail, her conduct again became the subject of Police scrutiny in a further Police operation known as Operation Beema.

[3] On 10 October 2011, she was arrested on a minor charge, but as a result of text data obtained was charged with 12 further counts of supplying methamphetamine.

[4] Ultimately following a number of developments which do not need to be recounted, she was sentenced in the High Court by Toogood J on 10 July 2012 on the charges arising from both Operation Arabia and Beema.1

[5] In his decision, Toogood J considered that on both sets of offending the total amount of methamphetamine came to approximately 36 grams, placing her in band two of on the scale set out in R v Fatu.2 Toogood J found that her involvement was more than that of a street level dealer, and involved commercial quantities. Ultimately he reached a starting point of five and a half years’ imprisonment. He uplifted that five and a half years by 12 months to take into account the offending while on bail and some additional cannabis offending to reach an end starting point

of six and a half years’ imprisonment. He then allowed a discount of 12 months, being approximately a 15 month discount for a guilty plea. The end sentence therefore was five and half years’ imprisonment with various consistent concurrent sentences on the various counts being imposed.

[6] That sentence was appealed to the Court of Appeal.3 The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal concluding that although the starting point of five and half years’ imprisonment was towards the upper end of the range it was not manifestly excessive.4

[7] In the period following Ms Clunie’s imprisonment, the Crown proceeded to carry out further research into the file. There are trials pending of a number of Ms Clunie’s associates who face charges of considerably greater gravity relating to an extensive methamphetamine…

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 Clunie

Details

AGLC: R v Clunie [2013] NZHC 2689
Case: [2013] NZHC 2689
Decision Date: 14 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Alison Elizabeth Clunie was sentenced by Asher J on charges stemming from her involvement in the methamphetamine trade, specifically her participation in the supply of methamphetamine and related materials. Clunie had already been sentenced for similar offences, but additional charges were brought against her after further investigation revealed her involvement in more extensive criminal activities. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for these new charges while considering the totality of her offending.

The legal issues before the court involved determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing the new charges, assessing the impact of Clunie's prior imprisonment and the delay in bringing these new charges, and deciding on the appropriate discount for her guilty plea and other mitigating factors. The court had to balance the severity of the new offences against the sentence already imposed and the need for proportionality in sentencing.

Asher J began by considering the total methamphetamine involved in the new charges, which increased the amount from 36 grams to approximately 90 grams. However, because many of the new charges were conspiracy counts where the supply never eventuated, the starting point was adjusted downwards. The court then placed itself in the position of sentencing Clunie for all charges collectively, arriving at an overall starting point of eight and a half years' imprisonment. This was adjusted downward to six and a half years to account for the guilty plea, her conduct in prison, and the hardship of facing new charges after already being sentenced. The final sentence imposed an additional one year's imprisonment, cumulative on the existing sentence, bringing the total to six and a half years.

The court's decision reflects a careful consideration of the totality of Clunie's offending, the impact of her prior imprisonment, and various mitigating factors. The additional sentence of one year aims to address her culpability for the new charges while recognizing her efforts to reform and the hardship she experienced.

Orders