Background facts [6] Approach to sentencing [11] Starting point [13] Manufacturing methamphetamine the lead offence [14]
Uplift to reflect other offending [18] Personal circumstances [26] Minimum period of imprisonment [32]

Formal sentences [36]

[1] Zebulin Mario Davoren: you appear for sentence after being found guilty by a jury, on 6 October 2014, of a total of 31 charges relating to your participation in a criminal group which was responsible for the manufacture of the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine; the production of the Class B controlled drug pseudoephedrine; and the distribution of those drugs.

[2] Ten co-offenders were also found guilty of a variety of charges and they were sentenced on 20 November 2014 to sentences ranging from four months’ home detention to 14 years’ imprisonment with a minimum term of seven years.1

[3] You were not sentenced at that time because, after your counsel had addressed the jury on your behalf and shortly before my summing-up to the jury, you breached the terms of the bail which had been granted during the long trial and absconded. You were found guilty and convicted in your absence and not apprehended until 3 March this year. I should add that I do not accept that the Police simply sat by and did nothing while you were on the run. I know that the Police made considerable efforts to locate you and I do not accept any suggestion that they had not worked hard enough at that.

[4] You are not being sentenced today, however, for any charge or charges relating to your breach of bail, and I want to make it clear that I accept it is not appropriate for me to punish you for taking off. But the fact that you breached an order of the Court while on trial, and so demonstrated contempt for orders of the Court, is something I have to consider when I determine the appropriate sentences to be imposed on you for the offences on which you appear. Your attitude is significant to sentencing and it may call for added weight to be given to the need for deterrence, accountability and community protection.

[5] Since you were not present when the verdicts were delivered, I formally discharge you now on the counts in the indictment on which you were found not
guilty.

1 R v Afakasi [2014] NZHC 2907.

[6] After a fire caused by an explosion at a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory in Glendene, West Auckland on 1 December 2011, the Police mounted an extensive operation of surveillance, interception and investigation into what proved to be a major drug-dealing enterprise which continued its activities for a period of
12…

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 Davoren

Details

AGLC: R v Davoren [2015] NZHC 807
Case: [2015] NZHC 807
Decision Date: 23 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zebulin Davoren was convicted by a jury on 6 October 2014 of 31 charges relating to his involvement in a criminal group responsible for the manufacture, production and distribution of methamphetamine and pseudoephedrine. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentences for Davoren's drug-related offences and his participation in an organised criminal group. The court also had to consider Davoren's personal circumstances, including his criminal history and drug addiction, in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also considered whether Davoren's absconding from bail before his sentencing should be marked separately.

The court determined that Davoren's role in the criminal group was significant and that he was a principal organiser and instigator of the methamphetamine manufacturing. The court also considered the total amount of drugs involved in the offending and the need to impose an end sentence which reflects the totality of Davoren's offending. The court imposed concurrent sentences on the charges, with the major sentences being 18 years and 6 months' imprisonment on each of the eight counts of manufacturing methamphetamine, with a minimum period of imprisonment of nine years and three months. The other sentences ranged from one to seven years' imprisonment. The court also considered the need for deterrence, accountability, and community protection in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders