R v Doull - [2012] NZHC 1048

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2010-055-1742 [2012] NZHC 1048

THE QUEEN

v

BRENDAN GARTH DOULL

Appearances: B Finn for the Crown
I Tucker for the Prisoner

Judgment: 11 May 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Counsel/Solicitors:
B Finn, Crown Solicitor, Auckland. Email: ben.finn@meredithconnell.co.nz
I Tucker, Tucker & Co, Takapuna. Email: tuckerandco@pl.net

R V BRENDAN GARTH DOULL HC AK CRI-2010-055-1742 [11 May 2012]

[1] Brendan Garth Doull you are before the Court for sentence having pleaded guilty to one representative count of possession for supply of methamphetamine, one representative count of offering to supply methamphetamine, one representative count of supplying methamphetamine, one specific count of conspiring to supply methamphetamine, one count of supplying substances capable of being used to manufacture methamphetamine, one count of supplying materials capable of being used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and one count of importing a Class B controlled drug namely GBL.

[2] Your offending was detected as the result of a police investigation called Operation Hype. The operation took place in 2008 around the Auckland area. You were identified as being involved in the supply of methamphetamine in Auckland. A Mr Van der Ven is alleged to have been the principal offender, manufacturer, and distributor.

[3] As part of the police investigation the police searched or obtained interception warrants to search audio and text messages including data from your mobile phone. When analysed that data disclosed a pattern of your obtaining methamphetamine, most probably from Mr Van der Ven and then on supplying it to a number of your associates. Between 11 December 2009 and 16 April 2010, just over four months, you had 389 contacts with Mr Van der Ven. The intercepted communications revealed that you were a busy street dealer in amounts ranging from
0.1 of a gram to whole grams. You appear to have had ready access to quantities of at least 7 grams. Between the December and April period you were involved in 59 instances of the supply of methamphetamine totalling 17.35 grams. There were a further 42 instances where communications would indicate you had possession of methamphetamine for supply weighing 19.2 grams. The offers for supply involved a total of 2.1 grams. Taken overall the quantity of methamphetamine that you either supplied, offered, or had in your possession for the purposes of supply can be seen to be in excess of 38 grams.

[4] The conspiracy charge relates to one instance of conspiring to supply methamphetamine with a total weight of an ounce which is approximately 28 grams. It seems you communicated with a family member and some other person about obtaining an ounce of methamphetamine for an associate. The charges in relation to the supply of the precursor substances and materials flowed from the fact that on 19
December you tried to obtain hypo-phosphorus from an unknown person for the use of the manufacture of methamphetamine. Then a week later you supplied the pseudoephedrine in the form of ContacNT and the hypo-phosphorous to a person…

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 Doull

Details

AGLC: R v Doull [2012] NZHC 1048
Case: [2012] NZHC 1048
Decision Date: 11 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Doull, presided over by Venning J, involved Brendan Garth Doull who pleaded guilty to multiple drug-related charges including possession for supply, offering to supply, and actual supply of methamphetamine, conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, supplying precursor substances for methamphetamine manufacture, and importing a Class B controlled drug, GBL. Doull's involvement in these activities was uncovered during a police operation, "Operation Hype," which revealed his significant role as a methamphetamine dealer, supplying a total of over 38 grams of the drug over a four-month period. His actions were facilitated by communications intercepted from his mobile phone, which showed a pattern of obtaining and supplying methamphetamine to various associates.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate sentencing range for the extensive drug-related offenses committed by Doull, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors. The court was required to balance the gravity and commercial scale of the offenses against Doull's personal history, his expressed remorse, and his potential for rehabilitation. The Crown argued for a sentence in the range of six to seven years and two months, while Doull's counsel suggested a sentence between four and a half to five years and three months.

Venning J, after considering the sentencing bands established by the Court of Appeal in R v Fatu for methamphetamine dealing and other relevant cases, set a start point of four years and six months for the methamphetamine-related offenses. The court then added two years for the conspiracy and supply of precursor substances and materials, and another two years for the importation of GBL, resulting in a total start point of eight years and six months. However, considering the totality principle and Doull's mitigating factors, such as his insight and remorse, the court reduced this to a start point of seven years and six months. After applying various discounts for factors such as his guilty pleas and his response to treatment, the court arrived at a final sentence of six years imprisonment, with all sentences to run concurrently, making the effective sentence six years.

Orders