R v Crompton - [2014] NZHC 1563

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2012-088-001542 [2014] NZHC 1563

THE QUEEN

v

JAYNE CROMPTON (aka ETHELSTONE) MARC HENRY ETHELSTONE DEAN FREDRICK THEOBALD

Hearing: 4 July 2014

Appearances:

M Jarman-Taylor for the Crown
P J Kaye for the Defendant, Jayne Crompton
C Muston for Defendant, Marc Ethelstone
M J Dyhrberg for Defendant, Dean Theobald

Sentencing:

4 July 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WOOLFORD J

R v CROMPTON & Ors [2014] NZHC 1563 [4 July 2014]

Introduction

[1] Ms Jayne Crompton, Mr Marc Henry Ethelstone and Mr Dean Fredrick

Theobald, you appear for sentence today having each been convicted on 25 April

2014 for drug-related offending following a nine week trial by jury here in

Whangarei.

[2] Ms Crompton, you were found guilty of four counts of manufacturing the class A drug methamphetamine,1 one count of attempted manufacture of methamphetamine,2 two counts of possession of methamphetamine for supply,3 four counts of supplying methamphetamine,4 thirteen counts of offering to supply methamphetamine,5 one count of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine,6 three counts of possession of a precursor substance,7 five counts of possession of equipment,8 five counts of possession of materials,9 three counts of possession of a firearm,10 one count of possession of an airgun,11 and two counts of possession of ammunition.12

[3] Mr Theobald, you were found guilty of four counts of manufacturing methamphetamine, two counts of possession of methamphetamine for supply, one count of supplying methamphetamine, one count of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, three counts of possession of a precursor substance, five counts of possession of equipment, four counts of possession of materials, three counts of possession of a firearm, one count of possession of an airgun, two counts of possession of ammunition, and one count of aggravated assault against a police
officer.13

1      An offence against Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(b) and 6(2)(a).
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 ss 6(1)(b) and 6(2)(a) and Crimes Act 1961 ss 72 and 311.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(a).
4      Sections 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a).
5      Sections 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a)
6      Sections 6(1)(b) and 6(2A)(a).
7      Sections 12A(2)(b) and 12A(3)(b).
8      Sections 12A(2)(a) and 12A(3)(b).
9      Sections 12A(2)(a) and 12A(3)(b).
10     Arms Act 1983, s 45.
11     Section 45.
12     Section 45.
13     Crimes Act 1961, s 192(2).

[4] Mr Ethelstone, you were found guilty of two counts of manufacturing methamphetamine, one count of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, one count of possession of methamphetamine for supply, one count of possession of a precursor substance, three counts of possession of equipment, three counts of possession of materials, one count of possession of ammunition, two counts of
possession of a firearm, one count of possession of a restricted weapon,14 and one

count of possession of the class C drug cannabis for supply.15

[5] Mr Theobald, you were found not guilty of two further counts, and Ms Crompton, you were found not guilty of an additional six counts. Despite those findings, clearly the collective 87 counts to which you two…

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 Crompton

Details

AGLC: R v Crompton [2014] NZHC 1563
Case: [2014] NZHC 1563
Decision Date: 4 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jayne Crompton, Marc Henry Ethelstone, and Dean Fredrick Theobald were convicted of multiple drug-related offences following a trial. The court sentenced the three defendants to lengthy periods of imprisonment. The court first determined an appropriate starting point for each defendant's methamphetamine manufacturing charges. In doing so, the court took into account the quantity of methamphetamine manufactured, the recidivist nature of the offending, the use of other peoples' homes for manufacturing, and the possession of firearms and ammunition. The court then considered the additional charges for which each defendant was convicted. For example, the court found that Mr Theobald should be sentenced to a shorter term of imprisonment because he was less involved in the offending. The court then adjusted the starting point to account for each defendant's additional charges. Finally, the court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors personal to each defendant. In all cases, the court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment in accordance with the Sentencing Act 2002.

Orders