R v Collett - [2021] NZHC 1658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-3685

[2021] NZHC 1658

THE QUEEN

v

ASHLEY EUGENE COLLETT

Hearing: 6 July 2021

Appearances:

K Whyte for the Crown

R Boot (on behalf of G Walsh) for the Defendant

Sentence:

6 July 2021

SENTENCE OF GAULT J

Solicitors / Counsel:
Mr K Whyte, Hamilton Legal, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Hamilton Mr G Walsh, Barrister, Hamilton
Mr R Boot, Gavin Boot Law, Hamilton

R v COLLETT [2021] NZHC 1658 [6 July 2021]

[1] Mr Collett, you appear for sentence today following guilty pleas on 27 April 2021 on five charges:1

(a)offering to supply methamphetamine (a representative charge);2

(b)possession of a .22 calibre rifle without lawful purpose;3

(c)possession of a 12-gauge shotgun without lawful purpose;4

(d)possession of .22 calibre ammunition without lawful purpose;5 and

(e)possession of 12-gauge shotgun shells without lawful purpose.6

[2] The Crown indicated it would not be calling evidence on two remaining charges.7 I dismiss those two charges.

The offending

[3] On 20 January 2020, the Waikato Police Organised Crime Squad began an investigation (Operation Kingsville) into the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine in the Waikato and Auckland regions. That investigation uncovered what Police characterise as a “highly organised and lucrative drug dealing business”.

[4] Police arrested 29 people in connection with Operation Kingsville, including you Mr Collett. You occupied the “third tier” of the group hierarchy, operating directly below co-defendant Ray Tyler-Waugh (second tier). That is, you had a lesser degree of involvement than that of your co-defendants who had leading roles in the operation, but a greater degree of involvement than that of your co-defendants occupying the fourth (bottom) tier.

1      R v Collett HC Hamilton CRI-2020-019-3685, 27 April 2021 (Minute of Wylie J) at [2].
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
3      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b). Maximum penalty: four years’ imprisonment or a $5,000 fine.
4      Section 45(1)(b). Maximum penalty: four years’ imprisonment or a $5,000 fine.
5      Section 45(1)(b). Maximum penalty: four years’ imprisonment or a $5,000 fine.
6      Section 45(1)(b). Maximum penalty: four years’ imprisonment or a $5,000 fine.
7      Charges 34 and 46 in the Crown Charge Notice dated 20 November 2020.

[5] You, along with two co-defendants, are said to have been responsible for conducting general day-to-day tasks required to ensure the manufacture of methamphetamine could occur. Those tasks included purchasing equipment and materials and assisting with the manufacturing process. You and they are also said to have acted as carriers and as drug debt collectors.

[6] The summary of facts to which you entered guilty pleas records that in the course of Operation Kingsville, Police intercepted communications show that you offered to supply an unspecified quantity of methamphetamine on at least two occasions.

[7] On 7 July 2020, Police executed a search warrant at an address on Pukemoremore Road. Officers located a .22 calibre pump action rifle behind a standalone mirror in your bedroom. The…

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 Collett

Details

AGLC: R v Collett [2021] NZHC 1658
Case: [2021] NZHC 1658
Decision Date: 6 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Collett involved the sentencing of Ashley Eugene Collett, who had pleaded guilty to multiple charges including offering to supply methamphetamine, possession of firearms, and ammunition without lawful purpose. The High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, presided over the case. The legal issues before the court involved determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, adjusting for personal factors, and applying discounts for the defendant’s guilty plea and time spent on electronic monitoring bail.

The court began by establishing a starting point of 22 months' imprisonment, treating the firearms charges as the primary offences given the uncertainty around the amount of methamphetamine involved. Aggravating factors included the possession of two loaded firearms in the context of drug supply activities. Mitigating factors acknowledged the defendant's drug addiction and his efforts towards rehabilitation, including his participation in a rehabilitative program and ongoing counselling. The court also noted the defendant's compliance with bail conditions post-breach and his early guilty plea. Taking into account the personal mitigating factors, the guilty plea discount, and time already spent on electronic monitoring bail, the court calculated a net discount of 35%. This reduced the starting point from 22 months to 14 months' imprisonment, but the court ultimately decided on a sentence of six months' home detention, considering it the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances.

The final orders included sentencing Collett to six months’ home detention, to be served concurrently on each charge, and an order for the destruction of the seized firearms and ammunition.

Orders