R v Duncan - [2013] NZHC 193

THERE IS AN ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION AND ANY IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE DEFENDANT IDENTIFIED AS H PENDING A FURTHER ORDER.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2010-070-7804

CRI-2010-004-22446 [2013] NZHC 193

THE QUEEN

v

ROYCE ALLAN DUNCAN WALLACE SCOTT BRAMLEY DYLAN PATRICK CORLETT

STACEY HELEN CLARK (AKA RUSSELL) NIGEL DAVID WALKER
H

Hearing: 8 February 2013 (Heard at Rotorua)

Counsel: G Hollister-Jones and N Belton for the Crown
J Bergseng for Mr Duncan
P G Mabey QC for Mr Bramley
A C Balme for Mr Corlett
A F Rickard-Simms for Ms Clark
D L Bates for Mr Walker
M Pecotic for H Judgment: 8 February 2013
SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

R V DUNCAN HC TAU CRI-2010-070-7804 [8 February 2013]

[1] This sentencing is for a large number of offences involving manufacture and supply of methamphetamine, related methamphetamine offences, and other offences which include money laundering and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

General comments

[2] Before I deal with your individual cases I have some general comments.

[3] The original indictment contained 203 counts. I will outline facts relating to some of the main offences, but not the facts relating to every offence. In the transcript of these sentencing comments I will include a single schedule for all defendants recording every count in the original High Court indictment which I am dealing with today and some other counts which I will come to in a moment.1 This indicates, amongst other things, the joint charges and corresponding count numbers in later indictments. The count numbers I refer to for Mr Duncan, Mr Bramley, Mr H and Mr Corlett are all from the original 203 count indictment. These are cross-
referenced in the schedule. The count numbers for Ms Clark and Mr Walker are from the final five count indictment. This will all be fully recorded in the schedules. Two co-offenders, Mr Williams and Ms Hastie, are still to be sentenced. And as you are well aware I adjourned the sentencing of Ms Hastie a short while ago. Mr Williams’ sentencing was adjourned yesterday. For convenience I have included the relevant count particulars for Mr Williams and Ms Hastie.

[4] I have received a large amount of written material. This includes: submissions for the Crown and for each defendant; letters from defendants, and letters or references and some other material in support of defendants; pre-sentence reports; and lists of previous offences. I have received further oral submissions this morning. I do not intend to refer to any great extent – in relative terms – to all of this material because to do so would take a long time and these comments are going to take some time in any event. What I want to make clear is that all relevant information has been taken into account. And I include information I have received
from family members.

1 The schedule is annexure 1.

[5] For the offences of manufacturing and dealing in methamphetamine, including…

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 Duncan

Details

AGLC: R v Duncan [2013] NZHC 193
Case: [2013] NZHC 193
Decision Date: 8 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Duncan involved the sentencing of several individuals who had been involved in methamphetamine manufacturing and supply. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentences for each defendant, taking into account their roles in the offending, the seriousness of the offences, and other mitigating factors. The court considered the quantity of methamphetamine involved, the extent of each defendant's involvement, and any personal factors that might warrant a reduction in sentence. Following the court's assessment, the sentences imposed varied significantly, with the most serious offenders receiving lengthy prison sentences, while others were sentenced to home detention and community work. The court also took into account the defendants' guilty pleas and efforts to rehabilitate, which resulted in some reductions in the proposed sentences.

Orders