R v Davies - [2015] NZHC 598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-092-13289 [2015] NZHC 598

THE QUEEN

v

JOEL AARON DAVIES

Hearing: 27 March 2015

Appearances:

S L McColgan for Crown
M A Edgar for Defendant

Sentence:

27 March 2015

SENTENCE OF M PETERS J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

Counsel: M A Edgar, Auckland

R v DAVIES [2015] NZHC 598 [27 March 2015]

[1] Mr Davies, you are for sentence on:

(a) eight charges of supplying methamphetamine, which is a Class A

controlled drug; and

(b) five charges of supplying pseudoephedrine, which is a Class B

controlled drug.1

[2] The maximum penalty for supplying methamphetamine is life imprisonment. I do not say that to scare you. I say that to tell you and your family how seriously this type of offending is viewed. The maximum penalty for supplying pseudoephedrine is 14 years’ imprisonment. It is generally a pre-cursor to the manufacture of methamphetamine and again attracts very stiff penalties.

[3] You pleaded guilty to these charges in February 2015.

[4] I have read the summary of facts, the pre-sentence report of 25 February

2015, the letters which I have been given this morning, thank you, and of course I have had the written submissions from Mr McColgan and your lawyer, Mr Edgar and I have had the benefit of hearing from them this morning.

[5] There is a large measure of agreement between them and me on the matters that are relevant for today’s purposes.

[6] To recap, your offending took place between July and December 2013, which is when you were arrested. It is not in dispute that over this period you supplied 700 grams of methamphetamine and a little less than two kilograms of ContacNT which contained 810 grams of pseudoephedrine.

[7] Everyone in this Courtroom will wish you had stayed right away from methamphetamine. You have School Certificate, a supportive family – evidenced by the number of them here today – a good work record and, until these offences, you had appeared before the Court only for some relatively trivial charges committed

some time ago. It is unfortunate to say the least that you should find yourself in this position.

[8] Now, your lawyer may have explained to you there are two parts to the sentencing process.

[9] First, I am required to determine what we call the starting point for your offending, and we do that having regard to the purposes and principles of sentencing, and having regard to any aggravating or mitigating factors relating to the offending.

[10] The next part of it is to adjust that starting point upwards, downwards, to take account of any factors relating to you personally.

[11] So it is a two stage process to arrive at a final sentence and I will make it clear to you when I have reached the end.

[12] Turning to the first part of the exercise, when sentencing for this type of offending primarily the Court seeks to deter – that is to discourage you…

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 Davies

Details

AGLC: R v Davies [2015] NZHC 598
Case: [2015] NZHC 598
Decision Date: 27 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joel Aaron Davies was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry for multiple charges of supplying methamphetamine and pseudoephedrine. The case, R v Davies, involved eight charges of supplying methamphetamine and five charges of supplying pseudoephedrine. The methamphetamine charges carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, while the pseudoephedrine charges had a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. Davies pleaded guilty to the charges in February 2015. The court assessed the total quantity of drugs supplied, which amounted to 700 grams of methamphetamine and 810 grams of pseudoephedrine. The court took into account the defendant’s background, including his education, family support, and employment history, as well as his previous minor offences. The judge determined a starting point of 11 years' imprisonment for the methamphetamine charges, placing them in Band 4 due to the large commercial quantity supplied. An additional 18 months was added for the pseudoephedrine charges, bringing the starting point to 12 years and six months. Considering mitigating factors such as Davies’ guilty plea and personal qualities, the judge applied discounts resulting in a final sentence of nine years and three months' imprisonment for all charges, to be served concurrently.

The court’s reasoning emphasised the seriousness of drug supply offences and the need to send a strong deterrent message to the community. The judge highlighted the importance of consistency in sentencing to ensure fairness among offenders. The final sentence reflected the statutory requirements and the need to balance the severity of the crime with the mitigating factors presented. The outcome was a comprehensive sentence that took into account the harm caused by the defendant's actions and the potential for rehabilitation, while also ensuring that the community’s safety was prioritised.

Orders