Legal Research
Cases
R v Cossey

R v Cossey

Case [2021] NZHC 1333 8 June 2021

Rehabilitative Justice

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-3685

[2021] NZHC 1333

THE QUEEN

v

ROMAN JOHN COSSEY

Hearing: 8 June 2021

Appearances:

C K Whyte for the Crown

J S Gurnick for the Defendant

Date of sentence:

8 June 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF JAGOSE J

Counsel/Solicitors:
J S Gurnick, Barrister, Hamilton
Hamilton Legal, Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

R v COSSEY [2021] NZHC 1333 [8 June 2021]

[1] Ms Cossey, on your guilty pleas, Gault J entered convictions against you in this Court on 21 April this year for representative charges of:1
(a)supplying methamphetamine;2and

(b) offering to supply methamphetamine;3 and then specific charges of:
(c)possession of methamphetamine for supply;4 and

(d)breach of a parole condition.5

The Crown offers no evidence on the balance of its charges against you, and I dismiss them.

[2] I now am to sentence you for your convictions. In sentencing you, I must accept as proven all facts essential to your guilty pleas.6 The Crown recommends you be sentenced to between two and a half to three years’ imprisonment. Your lawyer, James Gurnick, recommends a community-based sentence and, if so, seeks to adjourn your sentencing to enable further steps to be taken before that sentence is finalised. I am not bound by the lawyers’ views. I have to come to my own decision. I must satisfy myself of the appropriate sentence for the gravity (or seriousness) of your offending, including your culpability (or responsibility) for it.

Background

[3]I briefly address the background to your offending.

[4] On 20 January last year, the Waikato Police Organised Crime Squad began an investigation into the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine in the Waikato and

1      R v Cossey HC Hamilton CRI-2020-019-3685, 21 April 2021 (Minute of Gault J) at [1].
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
3      Section 6(1)(c). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
4      Section 6(1)(f). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
5      Parole Act 2002, s 71(1). Maximum penalty: one year’s imprisonment or a fine not exceeding
$2,000.
6      Sentencing Act 2002, s 24(1)(b).

Auckland areas. The investigation uncovered what police characterise as a “highly organised and lucrative drug dealing business”.

[5] You are one of 29 people arrested in connection with that investigation. You and four others, occupied the lowest tier of that group, having had the least degree of involvement in the operation. You were supplied methamphetamine from members of the group, which you sold to your own contacts. You operated in a similar way to co- defendants including Jane Paki, who already has been sentenced for her involvement.

[6] The summary of facts on which you pleaded guilty records you supplied, or offered to supply, methamphetamine on at least 36 occasions. While the total amounts of methamphetamine you supplied in those transactions remain uncertain, on 13 occasions you supplied methamphetamine totalling 12.25 grams, and on 23 occasions you offered to supply methamphetamine totalling 102.5 grams. These facts gave rise to the charges of…

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 Cossey

Details

AGLC: R v Cossey [2021] NZHC 1333
Case: [2021] NZHC 1333
Decision Date: 8 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roman John Cossey was convicted by Gault J of supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine for supply, and breaching a parole condition. The Crown recommended a sentence of between two and a half to three years’ imprisonment, while the defence recommended a community-based sentence. The court accepted the facts on which Cossey pleaded guilty, including that he supplied or offered to supply at least 114.75 grams of methamphetamine on at least 36 occasions, and was found in possession of approximately 20.74 grams of methamphetamine with nearly $20,000 in cash, indicating possession for supply. The court considered various personal factors, including Cossey's history of drug-related and driving-related offending, his remorse for his offending, and his willingness to undertake rehabilitation programmes. The court also considered the aggravating and mitigating features of Cossey's offending, including the substantial commerciality and premeditated nature of his offending, and his lesser role in the criminal operation. The court set a starting point of four years and six months’ imprisonment, then uplifted it by 15 per cent, and discounted it by 60 per cent. The court also considered the totality of Cossey's offending, which was insufficiently connected to his current offending, and deducted six months for totality. The court sentenced Cossey to two years and four months’ imprisonment, and ordered the forfeiture of the money found in his possession. The court did not impose a fine.

Orders