R v Dobbyn - [2014] NZHC 2715

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-004-18344 [2014] NZHC 2715

THE QUEEN

v

ANTHONY CHARLES DOBBYN

Charge:
Plea:

Manufacturing methamphetamine

Not Guilty

Counsel:

BD Tantrum and RK Thomson for Crown
SJ Bonnar QC for Prisoner

Sentenced:

3 November 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors/Counsel: Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Crown
Stephen Bonnar QC (Auckland) for Prisoner

R v DOBBYN [2014] NZHC 2715 [3 November 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Dobbyn, the jury found you guilty on one charge of manufacturing the

Class A drug methamphetamine. The offence occurred on or around 28 September

2012. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment and I have to decide now what

society’s response to your proved offending should be.

[2] Let me say at the outset that I am limited in what I can do by the law that binds me. When a Judge approaches a sentence, he or she does not look at whether the person they are going to sentence is a good person or a bad person. The Judge looks at what the proven facts are and then looks to see what the law requires them to do. Both of the lawyers here today understand that and, to a large extent, the law they have referred me to is the same because it is the law, and what the lawyers have been arguing about is what part of my discretion I can call on in your sentencing.

Facts

[3] I will not go through the facts of the case on which the jury convicted you. I discussed your case in my judgment on your application for a post-verdict discharge and they are there to be seen.1 But I do need to tell you the basis on which I will be sentencing you.

[4] You were a long time friend and associate of Mr Frank Murray and, to a lesser extent, Mr Brett Bogue. Those two were the main players in a very significant methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution business. I infer from the evidence that you were aware of that business. Indeed, I do not think that Mr Frank Murray made much of a secret of it when dealing with people that he knew well.

[5] On or about 28 September 2012, there was a manufacture of methamphetamine at your brother’s place at Wright Road, Matakana. You were there. I know that you and your brother deny that there was any manufacture at that address, but that is what the jury found and I am bound by that.

[6] It was a manufacture for commercial purposes. I do not know how much methamphetamine was manufactured, but I agree with Mr Tantrum that it was enough to engage Mr Bogue’s attention as the chief distributor of the business.

[7] There is no evidence that you actually participated in the manufacture and it was not your property. On all the evidence I heard, I conclude you were very much a secondary party. You were drawn into the manufacture by your association with…

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 Dobbyn

Details

AGLC: R v Dobbyn [2014] NZHC 2715
Case: [2014] NZHC 2715
Decision Date: 3 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dobbyn involves Anthony Charles Dobbyn, who was found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine. The case was heard and decided by the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for Mr Dobbyn, who was convicted of manufacturing a commercial amount of methamphetamine. The legal issues at hand included determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering Mr Dobbyn's role as a secondary party, and assessing mitigating and aggravating factors to arrive at a final sentence.

The court began by establishing the starting point for the sentence, which was influenced by the Court of Appeal's decision in R v Fatu. The court categorised Mr Dobbyn's case as falling within band 2 of Fatu's bands, generally indicating a starting point of at least four years' imprisonment. However, given Mr Dobbyn's role as a secondary party, the court adjusted the starting point to three years' imprisonment. The court also considered Mr Dobbyn's personal circumstances, including his age, previous convictions, and character references. Despite his otherwise good character, the court noted two prior convictions for possession of cannabis and six for unlawfully possessing firearms, which limited the credit given for his good character. The pre-sentence report suggested a risk of re-offending as low to medium and recommended a sentence of home detention.

After weighing the various factors, the court decided to give Mr Dobbyn a good character discount of three months, resulting in a final sentence of two years and nine months' imprisonment. The court was limited in its ability to reduce the sentence further due to Mr Dobbyn's refusal to plead guilty and his insistence on his innocence. The final order was for Mr Dobbyn to serve two years and nine months in prison for the charge of manufacturing methamphetamine.

Orders