R v Duncan
[2013] NZHC 193
•8 February 2013
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 WalkerM 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 offering to supply or having possession for supply, there is the Court of Appeal tariff case of Fatu.2 The guidelines provided by the Court in that case have been taken into account for the relevant offences. For the other offences relating to methamphetamine, generally there are no specific Court of Appeal guideline cases, but the Fatu guidelines are of assistance. They assist by way of comparison, with appropriate adjustments to be made having regard to the maximum penalties for these other offences. The Fatu guidelines also assist in relation to conspiracies
relating to methamphetamine dealing and the like, provided further adjustments are made as necessary. The broad approach in this regard is discussed in other leading cases. The relevant principles have, of course, been taken into account.
[6] The first thing to do for the sentences for each of you is to fix a starting point for what is called the lead offence, or in some cases lead offences – that is, the most serious offence or offences. This is an assessment concerned only with the seriousness of the offence. Personal factors which might increase or decrease a sentence are taken into account at a later point. For the methamphetamine offences, the primary guide for the starting point is Fatu, adjusted as necessary in the way I have just mentioned. In some cases it is appropriate also to take account of sentences which have also been imposed on co-offenders. There are such sentences
imposed on Anthony Cooper,3 Alison Duncan4 and Glen Stevenson.5 I have also
been referred to sentencing decisions in other cases. Contrary to a submission by Mr Hollister-Jones, it is helpful to consider other cases as appropriate. I have taken account of these cases to the extent that they are relevant. I do not intend to discuss any of these cases to any great extent. I will record the names of the cases in the transcript of these sentencing comments.6
[7] With the exception of Ms Clark and Mr Walker, you pleaded guilty to the charges for which you are to be sentenced. You are entitled to credit for the guilty
pleas by way of reduction of the sentence. Although there are differences between
2 R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA).
3 R v Cooper HC Tauranga CRI-2010-070-7804, 16 March 2012.
4 R v Duncan [2012] NZHC 1208.
5 R v Stevenson DC Tauranga CRI-2009-070-003516, 24 April 2012.6 These are in annexure 2.
the submissions on behalf of some of you and submissions for the Crown, again I do not propose to go into any great detail. I do note that the trial was set down for six weeks commencing on 5 November 2012 and guilty pleas by some of you were not entered until 26 October. In addition to the submissions on the circumstances and the timing of the pleas, I have taken account of the broad principles stated in the
Supreme Court case of Hessell.7 In your cases, Ms Clark and Mr Walker, because
you were found guilty following a trial, there is no reduction available for guilty pleas. And I am sure these are matters you are aware of.
[8] In all of your cases submissions have been made on personal matters. Generally matters of a personal nature, advanced to reduce sentences in relation to serious drug dealing offences, will not be given much weight. But this is not an inflexible rule. Personal matters have been taken into account in your respective cases as appropriate, and as I will explain. But again I do not intend to go into detail when dealing with your individual sentences. And by detail I mean I am not going into the large amount of written material. And I repeat that. I said something to a similar effect a moment ago, and in part it is said for members of your respective families. I have read the material. But I am not in a position to acknowledge all of it explicitly. The relevant matters are, of course, in that material.
[9] I will now deal with your individual cases. Each of you may remain seated while I discuss your cases. At the end of this I will formally impose the sentence on each of you.
Mr Duncan
[10] Mr Duncan, your offences are as follows. I will record the count numbers in the transcript but not while I am reading this out:
there is one count of manufacturing methamphetamine (count 4);
there are two conspiracies to manufacture methamphetamine – and I will mention that these are counts 101 and 129 because they apply to other
defendants;
7 Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135; [2011] 1 NZLR 607; (2010) 24 CRNZ 966.
there is one count of possession of methamphetamine for supply (count 102);
two conspiracies to supply methamphetamine (counts 80 and 147);
fourconspiracies to supply pseudoephedrine or precursors or materials for methamphetamine manufacture (counts 21, 114, 115 and 143);
supplying methamphetamine (count 97);
15counts of possession of precursors, materials or equipment for methamphetamine manufacture (counts 103, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 130,
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139);
oneconspiracy and one attempt to pervert the course of justice – those are separate counts (counts 124 and 141);
a conspiracy to money launder (count 150);
and a completed money laundering offence (count 151).
[11] All of the offending I am dealing with today for you arose out of a police operation called Safari. There are some additional offences by Mr Bramley. In relation to the operation Safari offences you were one of the two principal offenders. You were not involved in all of the offending, but you were the driving force for much of the most serious offending. The other principal offender is Mr Bramley who described himself in evidence as being in partnership with you in the manufacture of methamphetamine at least.
[12] The lead offence is count 4 – the manufacture of between 972 and 995 grams of methamphetamine. Mr Bramley, who was the cook, said it was 995 grams. Although Mr Bramley was the cook you are equally culpable for this manufacture.
[13] The Crown submits that the starting point should be 16 to 17 years imprisonment. Mr Bergseng, on your behalf, submits that it should be 14 years. It is convenient to record at this point, in relation to Mr Bramley, that the submissions are the same – the Crown submits 16 to 17 years and Mr Mabey QC, for Mr Bramley, submits 14 years. Mr Bergseng in fact adopted Mr Mabey’s written submissions.
[14] The cases referred to for the defence – and these will be mentioned in the transcript – involve larger quantities of methamphetamine than the present case, but apart from the case of Filer,8 involve lead offences of supply, not manufacture. This is relevant up to a point. It is relevant because Fatu9 band 4 for supply starts at 10 years imprisonment for 500 grams of methamphetamine, whereas Fatu band 4 for
manufacture starts at 13 years for manufacture of 500 grams. The proposed starting point for you Mr Duncan, and for Mr Bramley, is therefore 1 year above that effective starting point within the band. Sentencing is not an arithmetical exercise, but bearing in mind that the quantity in this case was almost double the threshold of
500 grams, I do consider that a starting point of 14 years is too low. In addition, I take account of the fact that almost 1 kilogram was manufactured on one occasion. This is manufacturing on a very large scale. And I am emphasising the fact that a kilogram was produced on one occasion. In an important respect it can be
compared, adversely to you and Mr Bramley, with the case of Gollop10 which is
referred to by the Crown. In that case the manufacturers were producing, in relative terms, much smaller quantities – around 300 grams. But compared with you – which resulted in much higher sentences on some of those people – they did it five times, producing about 1.5 kilograms or more.
[15] When comparing cases, it is appropriate to consider a degree of relativity based on the quantities involved, but that factor tends to diminish, to an extent, when large quantities are involved. In other words, and in general terms, there may be justification for seeing more difference between manufacturing 500 grams and 1 kilogram than between manufacturing 1 kilogram and 2 kilograms. And there is, in general terms, less justification, I consider, for drawing a major distinction between the manufacture of 1 kilogram on one occasion and the manufacture of a total of 1 ½ or 2 kilograms on a number of occasions over an extended period of time.
[16] Taking account of these matters and all of the other information that I have been provided with, the starting point in your case, Mr Duncan, and in the case of Mr
Bramley, for count 4 is 15 years imprisonment. As you will appreciate, that is a year
8 R v Filer [2010] NZHC149.
9 R v Fatu above n 2.
10 R v Gollop HC Auckland CRI 2006-092-016424, 13 February 2009.
more than the submission on your behalf. It is less than the submission for the Crown. Having said that I want to emphasise that I am not simply finding a mid point. That is my assessment, taking account of all of these factors, of a proper starting point.
[17] There needs to be an increase for the other offences. The Crown submits 7 to
8 years. Mr Bergseng submits that it should be no more than 3 years. [18] I do need to refer to particulars of some of the other offences:
(a) Count 101 is conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. This was a conspiracy with Mr Bramley, Mr Corlett, Ms Hastie and Mr H. The conspiracy was at a point where manufacturing could have started and on a large scale. And the probability of a large scale is reinforced not only by the quantities but by the fact that you produced a kilogram back in March. It came to an end when Mr Bramley’s car was searched on 29 August and found to contain over 6 kilograms of washed ContacNT. This could produce between around 1.4 and 2.2 kilograms of methamphetamine. Substantial quantities of equipment and chemicals and other things for methamphetamine manufacture were found at about the same time.
(b)Count 129 is the other conspiracy to manufacture. It got underway after Mr Bramley’s arrest. The scale of your criminal activities, Mr Duncan, is indicated by the fact that although the 6 kilograms of ContacNT and the equipment and chemicals were seized, together with 266 grams of methamphetamine in Mr Bramley’s car which ready for sale, you were able to start again. $110,000 worth of ContacNT was purchased and other chemicals and equipment were acquired. You began the process. On 20 September, when your home was searched, police found 190 grams of pseudoephedrine. This could produce up to 175 grams of methamphetamine. Police also found 2.2 kilograms of ContacNT capsules which on one calculation
anyway is capable of producing around 670 grams of methamphetamine.
(c) Count 102 is the possession of methamphetamine for supply. This is the 266.7 grams of methamphetamine found in Mr Bramley’s car. This is a large quantity of methamphetamine. The Fatu starting point for this, by itself, is 8 years imprisonment.
(d)Count 124 is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice after the methamphetamine and ContacNT was found in Mr Bramley’s car in Tauranga. You and Mr Corlett and Ms Hastie arranged for another person – or tried to arrange for another person – to take responsibility.
(e) Count 141 is an attempt to pervert the course of justice by arranging for Mr Williams and another person to go into your property, when it was under police guard, to recover $500,000 buried on the property. The detail is in my disputed facts judgment.
(f) Count 150 is the conspiracy to money launder with Mr Walker involving the intended purchase of a property with Mr Walker’s assistance as a real estate agent. I provide further detail when discussing Mr Walker’s sentence.
(g)Count 151 was completed money laundering of $105,000 of cash paid for a boat.
(h) Count 147 is a conspiracy to supply 28 grams of methamphetamine.
This is separately noted not just because it is a reasonably large amount but also because it occurred after you had been granted bail. Count 143 – conspiring to supply a precursor substance – also occurred when you were on bail.
[19] The Crown’s submission of an uplift of 7 to 8 years would result in a sentence, before any reductions for personal factors, of 23 to 25 years imprisonment
based on the Crown’s starting point. That length of imprisonment, in isolation, indicates that the Crown’s submission in my judgment is well outside an acceptable range having regard to totality. It is also in my judgment not borne out by the case of Gollop relied on by the Crown.11 Mr Bergseng submitted that the uplift should be no more than 3 years. This, of course, is for all of the other offending, not just the other methamphetamine offences, and it might seem inadequate if just looking at those
other offences. However, a total of 18 years imprisonment, which would be the sentence if there were no personal factors justifying a reduction, in my judgment would be getting towards the outer limit in terms of totality. I therefore limit the uplift to 3 years which at this point means a total of 18 years imprisonment.
Personal factors
[20] You are aged 50. You have one child aged 6 and another aged 18 months. Ms Clark is the mother of the younger child. You have no previous convictions of any present relevance. The previous convictions are also relatively few in number and indicate that the present offending is a marked change of course well into your maturity. I take this into account in your favour. What this in turn suggests is a reasonable possibility that your expressions of remorse have some substance.
[21] In your letter to me Mr Duncan, you asked that I stipulate that you be placed in a drug treatment unit in prison. I cannot direct this but I encourage it to the extent that I can. And I acknowledge the steps you are taking.
[22] The Crown submits that you should not get a reduction of more than 10% for the guilty pleas. Mr Bergseng submits, for the reasons he outlined, that it should be
15%. By reference solely to the timing of the guilty pleas the argument favours the Crown. However, I have decided it is appropriate to bring in at this point the other matters just mentioned relating to remorse and your age and other personal factors. On this basis I will allow a reduction of 15%. This results in an end sentence for the lead offence of 15 years 3 months imprisonment. This is subject to one other matter. You were on EM bail with a 24 hour curfew for 6 months. This warrants a further
reduction of 3 months. It might be argued that that should be brought in before a
11 R v Gollop above n 10.
reduction for guilty pleas but I consider it is appropriate to bring it in at the end. Concurrent sentences less than that will be imposed for the other offences, so that the total is 15 years.
[23] The Crown seeks an order for a minimum period of imprisonment. In your particular case – and I emphasise your particular case – the decision is perhaps borderline. And it is not an easy decision. But I am satisfied that the considerable length of this sentence when weighed against your age, other matters noted in the pre-sentence report and all other relevant material that there should be no minimum period of imprisonment. As Keane J said in the Filer12 case, in as many words, against the background I have mentioned your particular circumstances are circumstances which should remain fully under the review of the Parole Board. It is
now up to you. As I said Mr Duncan, I will come to the formal sentence in due course.
Mr Bramley
[24] Mr Bramley, you are to be sentenced for the following offences, which include the counts in the District Court indictment.
twomanufactures of methamphetamine – just to be clear, that is count 4 in the High Court indictment and the District Court count 23;
there are three conspiracies to supply precursors or pseudoephedrine (counts
13, 21 and 60);
two conspiracies to supply methamphetamine (counts 14 and 93);
possession of the class B drug GBL for supply (count 105);
conspiracy to supply GBL (count 53);
conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, and that is count 101;
possession of methamphetamine for supply, and that is that large quantity in count 102;
12 R v Filer above n 8.
seven High Court counts of possession of precursors, materials or equipment for methamphetamine manufacture (counts 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109,
110);
11 District Court counts of possession of precursors, material or equipment for methamphetamine manufacture;
attempting to pervert the course of justice (count 123);
money laundering (count 149);
and possession of cannabis for supply being count 25 in the District Court.
[25] The lead offence in your case is the same as the lead offence for Mr Duncan – the manufacture of methamphetamine in count 4. As already noted, the Crown submitted that the starting point for you should be the same as that for Mr Duncan – that is, 16 to 17 years imprisonment. For the reasons already discussed in relation to Mr Duncan, because they apply fully and equally to you, I am satisfied that the starting point for count 4 should be 15 years imprisonment.
[26] In relation to an uplift for other offending I note, firstly – and I have already indicated – I am satisfied that you were, in broad terms, operating at the same level as Mr Duncan – when related to all of the offenders you were at the top. As I have also stated, and as you said in your own words, you were Mr Duncan’s partner.
[27] The other offending to be dealt with, in terms of particulars, includes the following:
(a) The conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in count 101, already outlined for Mr Duncan.
(b)Possession for supply of the 266.7 grams of methamphetamine in count 102.
(c) Wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice in count 123. This occurred after your car had been searched on 5 August in Auckland.
You and others arranged for a third party to take responsibility for methamphetamine and other items found in your car.
(d)And the other principal offence is the money laundering, count 149, involving the purchase of a car for $17,700.
[28] The District Court offences are unrelated to operation Safari. They occurred in 2009, with a number of the offences occurring in March and the remaining offences occurring in August 2009. Those offences include the following:
(a) The March offences all relate to the same day and involve possession of equipment and material for methamphetamine manufacture. The materials included 800 millilitres of hypophosphorous acid and 3.5 kilograms of iodine. These are significant quantities. One calculation indicates that if the total of the acid was used with part only of the iodine – and other necessary ingredients – up to 740 grams of methamphetamine could be produced.
(b)The offences in August 2009 include manufacturing an unknown quantity of methamphetamine. You were also in possession of 2 kilograms of cannabis for the purpose of sale.
[29] As with Mr Duncan, the Crown submits that there should be an uplift for all of the other offending of 6 to 7 years imprisonment. The operation Safari offending occurred when you were on bail for the offences in the District Court indictment. The Crown submits there should be a further increase of 12 months because of this.
[30] Mr Mabey submitted that the uplift for all of the other offending – High Court and District Court – should be 2 years. As I understood it he did not challenge the Crown submission of a further year for the offending on bail. It was very significant offending on bail.
[31] The uplift for your operation Safari offending should be less than the uplift
for Mr Duncan. However, contrary to Mr Mabey’s submission, I consider that the
uplift for the operation Safari offending – the High Court indictment – by itself, should be 2 years and that there should be a further uplift of 1 year for the offending in the District Court indictment. An increase of 1 year for all of the District Court offending in my judgment is reasonably modest. The extensive offending while you were on bail certainly justifies a further increase of 1 year. The result in your case, Mr Bramley, is an uplift of a total of 4 years. This results in a total of 19 years imprisonment before considering reductions of a personal nature, or before considering personal factors, and I now come to those.
Personal factors
[32] You are 38 years old. There are no personal factors warranting any increase. You have only three prior convictions. These are of a date and nature to treat you, for present purposes, to all intents and purposes as if you had no previous convictions. For this reason, and having regard to your age, and to encourage you so far as I am able – and I am very limited in that respect – and in this recognising, Mr Bramley, that you plainly have abilities and intelligence which could be put to far better use and which you are endeavouring to put to better use – I will reduce the sentence, before considering the guilty pleas, by 12 months. This equates broadly with the allowance to Mr Duncan – slightly more in your case because you are in large measure effectively a first offender.
[33] Both counsel are agreed that there should be a 20% reduction for the guilty pleas. Mr Mabey submitted at least 20%. I certainly accept that it should be 20% and that is what I will apply. This results in an end sentence by my calculation of 14 years 5 months imprisonment.
[34] There will be no minimum period of imprisonment. The reasons are, in broad terms, the same as those in Mr Duncan’s case. But I emphasise as I did with Mr Duncan that that is a borderline decision Mr Bramley. And in the case of both of you, I hope both of you take it as encouragement – by which I mean, in both of your cases, that we never see you back here again.
Mr Corlett
[35] Mr Corlett, your offences are as follows:
the two conspiracies to manufacture methamphetamine in counts 101 and
129;
offering to supply methamphetamine and supplying methamphetamine
(counts 121 and 122);
three counts of possessing a precursor and supplying a precursor for methamphetamine manufacture (counts 103, 113 and 138);
conspiracy to supply a precursor (count 114);
conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (count 124);
and two counts of offering to supply GBL (counts 79 and 120).
[36] In your case I agree with the Crown submission that the two manufacturing conspiracies – counts 101 and 129 – should be taken together as the lead offences. Particulars of the advanced stage of both conspiracies and quantities involved have already been provided by me. The main question in your case is the extent of your involvement. You were an assistant, not a director. But you did undertake important tasks in advancing the conspiracy. In the first conspiracy you became involved in trying to obtain ContacNT and expressed a willingness to Mr Bramley to be involved in the manufacturing process. Mr Bramley was trying to obtain ContacNT from Mr H. You offered to hurry this up as Mr H was a long term acquaintance of yours. The large quantity of ContacNT was obtained by Mr Bramley from Mr H. It was you who then washed it and delivered it back to Mr Bramley and it was then found in his car by police, as I have mentioned.
[37] In the second conspiracy you were involved in an initial meeting with Mr Duncan and Ms Hastie. You were asked by Mr Duncan to help in obtaining ContacNT. You washed and supplied 2,000 capsules of ContacNT to Mr Duncan. You supplied 20 litres of toluene to Mr Duncan. You then went to Auckland with Mr Duncan where 10,000 capsules were obtained. This is sufficient to make between around 495 to 740 grams of methamphetamine.
[38] I have provided these details of your involvement because there is a very big difference between Mr Balme’s submission as to the starting point and that of the Crown. The Crown submits 10 years. Mr Balme on your behalf submits 5 years. The Crown’s submission proceeds on the basis that the starting point for the principal offenders, if both conspiracies had led to completed manufacture, would be between 16 and 17 years imprisonment. Because this was a conspiracy it is
submitted, in reliance on a case called Howell13 – and there are other cases – that
there should be a 30% reduction in the starting point. The 10 years starting point for you proposed by the Crown, using the 30% – and effectively working backwards – indicates a starting point for you if the conspiracies had been completed of over 14 years imprisonment.
[39] You willingly became involved in both conspiracies and participated in an active way. Things you did were essential, although your particular involvement compared with somebody else who might have been available perhaps was not essential. However, I assess your culpability as being substantially below that of Messrs Duncan and Bramley in the first conspiracy and that of Mr Duncan in the second. Nothing would have happened without their involvement. Probably all of it could have happened without your involvement. There is also in my judgment a degree of artificiality in looking at the total potential yield from both conspiracies. This is because the second conspiracy would not have happened – at least in the way it did and the time that it did – and this is what I am concerned with – if the first conspiracy had not been brought to an end by the police. There is need to avoid double counting when dealing with two conspiracies as the starting point. I am also satisfied that your role was somewhat less than that of Mr H.
[40] In addition, your involvement was clearly driven largely – and certainly in very large measure – by addiction. And there does not appear to have been any personal gain other than access to drugs. There is no evidence of this. Aspects of this might be considered in relation to personal factors but it is convenient to deal with it when looking at the starting point.
[41] I fix the starting point at 6 ½ years for each of the conspiracies.
13 R v Howell HC Rotorua CRI-2006-063-4690, 30 May 2008.
[42] The Crown submits that there should be an uplift of 18 months for the other offences. Mr Balme submits 1 year. I agree that it should be 1 year. Numbers of the other offences are elements of the conspiracies. The dealing in methamphetamine and GBL was low level street dealing. In the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice you were simply a messenger or go-between.
[43] This takes the sentence to 7 years 6 months imprisonment at this point.
Personal factors
[44] I now come to personal factors. You are aged 38. Your life for a long time has been adversely affected in a significant way by drug addiction and by depression. I have received a substantial number of very supportive letters from your family together with your own letter and other relevant references. It is apparent – and I recognise – that you have made significant and commendable efforts to free yourself of the addiction and get on with a constructive life. This is important.
[45] There are no personal factors justifying an increase in the sentence and it may be noted that there are no previous convictions of any consequence and notwithstanding the level of your addiction.
[46] There are three factors to consider in relation to reductions – the significant efforts you have already made in rehabilitating yourself, the time spent on remand on restrictive bail terms, and the guilty pleas.
[47] The time spent on remand on restrictive terms, if considered in isolation, might be factored in after a reduction for the guilty pleas. However, in your case it is appropriately dealt with in conjunction with the efforts at rehabilitation because the two are linked. You spent around 12 months on EM bail. You were then admitted to the Odyssey House programme in December 2011 and subject to restrictive bail terms there. Taking account in a combined way of the restrictive bail conditions together with the impressive efforts at rehabilitation, but avoiding double credits, and for the purpose of seeking to encourage you as best as I can in ongoing rehabilitation, I consider there should be a reduction of 2 years. And I must say, that
is a significant reduction in the context of offending of this sort. It does reflect, as best as I can reflect it, the really significant efforts you have made. This brings it down to 5 years 6 months. This reduction also takes account of the reductions for Mr Duncan and Mr Bramley with the allowance in your case being more.
[48] For the guilty pleas, the Crown submits there should be an allowance of no more than 10 to 15%. Mr Balme submitted 25%. The guilty pleas for the lead offences were not entered until October, but there is some weight in Mr Balme’s submission that the guilty pleas for the charges which are elements of the conspiracy, to which you had not by then pleaded guilty, were entered in April. The appropriate credit in my judgment is 13 months, which is just under 20%. That produces an end sentence for you of 4 years 5 months imprisonment.
[49] I am satisfied that there should be no minimum period of imprisonment.
Mr H
[50] Mr H, your offences are:
two counts of supplying GBL (counts 90 and 117);
two counts of conspiracy to supply GBL (counts 119 and 146);
one conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine which is count 101;
fiveoffences of possessing precursors, material or equipment for methamphetamine manufacture (counts 106, 107, 108, 109, 110);
attempting to pervert the course of justice (count 123);
and conspiracy to supply a precursor (count 128).
[51] The lead offence is the conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine – count
101. I am satisfied that your role, although below Messrs Duncan and Bramley, was significantly more central than that of Mr Corlett. You supplied the 6 kilograms of ContacNT to Mr Bramley. Although others may have helped or participated, you moved all the necessary chemicals and equipment to the McKenzie Road property for the planned manufacture. Ms Pecotic in her oral submissions initially described
you as a ‘dog’s body’. Responsibly, in my judgment, she moved away from that and
acknowledged that your role was substantially more than a ‘dog’s body’.
[52] The Crown submits the starting point should be 9 years imprisonment. This compares with the Crown submission of 10 years as the starting point for Mr Corlett for the two conspiracies to manufacture. Ms Pecotic, who agrees that the lead offence is this offence, submits that the starting point should be between 4 ½ and 5 years imprisonment. I am satisfied that the starting point should be 6 years imprisonment.
[53] In respect of the other offences the Crown submits there should be an increase of 2 years. Ms Pecotic accepted this. You were the key player in the attempt to pervert the course of justice in count 123. Most of the other offences, apart from the GBL offences, are in broad term aspects of the more serious conspiracy to manufacture. This results in a total at this point of 8 years imprisonment.
Personal factors
[54] You are aged 35. You have only four previous convictions, none of which is relevant. As Ms Pecotic submitted, your present offending represents, and I quote her, “a quantum leap in terms of seriousness”. The lack of any previous offending of any consequence at the age of 35, as with some other defendants, tends to give some weight to your expressions of remorse and the supporting references. You also responsibly told the probation officer – and it is reflected in your letter – that you could not blame your drug use for your offending.
[55] You did not enter your guilty pleas until 26 October 2012. The Crown submits that the reduction for the guilty pleas should be no more than 10%. Ms Pecotic submits that there should be a global reduction of between 20 and 30% for the guilty pleas and remorse and related personal factors. Acknowledging the general guidelines in Hessell14 to the essential effect that guilty pleas be dealt with
separately and last, I consider that this is a case where credit for remorse and the
14 Hessell v R above n 7.
other personal factors is appropriately dealt with in conjunction with a credit for guilty pleas. The total in your case is 20 months. That is fractionally above 20%. It results in an end sentence of 6 years 4 months imprisonment.
[56] There will be no minimum period of imprisonment.
Ms Clark
[57] Ms Clark, of the two offences in your case, the lead offence is clearly the possession of 2.8 kilograms of cannabis for supply. By reference to the Court of Appeal decision in Terewi,15 and other cases, the Crown submits that the starting point should be 3 to 3 ½ years imprisonment. Mr Rickard-Simms on your behalf, and with reference to a schedule of other cases, submitted that the starting point should be around 2 years imprisonment. The cases – and including some others that I have looked at – indicate a reasonably wide range of starting points within category
2 of Terewi – and that is what we are dealing with. Having regard to the cases and in particular the Court of Appeal decisions in Gray16 and Rakatau17 I would fix the starting point at no more than 2 years 6 months.
[58] The other offence was supplying scales to Mr Duncan to be used for methamphetamine manufacture. The Crown submits that there should be an increase of 6 months for this offence. Mr Rickard-Simms submits 3 months. I do not want to diminish the relative significance of this other offence – and I emphasise relative. However, having regard to the nature of your personal relationship with Mr Duncan, and the fact that you were essentially doing his bidding, I in fact consider that the increase for the other offence should be 1 month.
Personal factors
[59] You are aged 36. You have five children; the youngest is your 18 month old daughter.
15 R v Terewi [1999] 3 NZLR 62 (CA).
16 R v Gray [2009] NZCA 31.
17 R v Rakatau [2007] NZCA 21.
[60] You attribute your offending to your associates and drug use and, relevantly, including use of cannabis. That is relevant to the starting point. In relation to drug use however – and taking account of what I just said – the substantial element is a commercial exercise. On the other hand, you have taken important steps to address the drug use. You have no previous convictions of any relevance or consequence. You express remorse.
[61] In my judgment, the most significant personal consideration is your young daughter. I am satisfied that if prison was being considered this would justify a substantial reduction in relative terms. And I am there referring to the needs of your daughter. The other positive factors would warrant further reductions. I am not going to quantify this except that it would take a prison sentence below 2 years. This, Ms Clark, justifies consideration of home detention. It is recommended in the pre-sentence report. I consider that it is appropriate.
[62] There will be a sentence of 9 months home detention. There will be a further sentence of 80 hours community work.
Mr Walker
[63] Mr Walker, you are to be sentenced for the single offence of conspiring with
Mr Duncan to launder money derived from drug dealing.
[64] You worked as a real estate agent. Acting as a real estate agent you assisted Mr Duncan in negotiations to purchase an industrial unit in Mt Maunganui. Mr Bates has provided a careful analysis of the evidence at trial. There are some points
– perhaps numbers of points – of detail, where there are differences between the submissions for the Crown and from Mr Bates on your behalf. On some particulars I might agree with Mr Bates’ submission. However, I am satisfied that the jury found you guilty on the basis that you knowingly agreed to assist Mr Duncan in seeking to convert $400,000 in money derived from drug dealing into the industrial property. The finer points of fact are not relevant. I am also satisfied that the extent of your knowledge, which bears on the extent of your culpability, is also indicated by the matters you discussed with Mr Duncan and things you did which were not directly
related to the planned money laundering. This is not taking into account other matters as if you had been convicted of other offences; it is taking account of evidence to assess the degree of your culpability for this offence. There was a discussion about fake syndicate ownership of a launch. Mr Duncan talked to you about the possibility of your employer exchanging $200,000 in cash for a cheque. The two of you had a discussion about Mr Duncan’s building a house on your employer’s land as a good way to hide some money. There was a discussion about putting the offer for the industrial property into the name of Mr Duncan’s father, and that happened. I must say, Mr Walker, in the light of the facts as a whole your continued contention of complete ignorance of where the money was coming from I cannot accept. It is also relevant in terms of the jury’s conclusion that recklessness on your part as to the source of the funds for the purchase was not put to the jury. This element of the conviction was actual knowledge that the money came from drug dealing. That is the conclusion the jury had to come to to convict you.
[65] The Crown submitted that the starting point should be 3 ½ to 4 years imprisonment. Emphasis was placed on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Wallace.18 That was a case of completed money laundering rather than a conspiracy, although the maximum penalties are the same.
[66] Mr Bates submits that the starting point should be between 15 months to 2 years imprisonment. As with all other defendants, I have taken account of his careful submissions, including the analysis of the evidence the jury heard and reference to the other cases. The cases include sentences of home detention and in that regard I refer in particular to the case of Simanu and Sauer.19 It is a case of some importance in my judgment. It is also relevant to note that in this case there does not appear to be any evidence that you were going to derive a financial benefit from the assistance that you agreed to provide to Mr Duncan in money laundering.
Of course, a commission might come through had there been a sale, but that was a
commission that would come through from the vendor.
18 R v Wallace CA415/98, 16 December 1998.
19 R v Simanu HC Auckland CRI-2008-404-020453, 16 December 2010.
[67] The starting point against all of the relevant background that I have outlined and that is contained in the written material in my judgment should be 2 to 2 ½ years imprisonment.
Personal factors
[68] You are aged 47. You have been married twice. You have a 22 year old daughter of your first marriage and three children aged 14, 12 and 10 from the second marriage. Your second marriage, as I understand it, came to an end in November 2011 and you have primary day-to-day care of the three younger children.
[69] You have three previous convictions but these are irrelevant in terms of this offending and also, in relative terms, sufficiently inconsequential to treat you, at the age of 47 years, as a first offender. For the avoidance of doubt I record that the previous offences are two motor vehicle offences in 1994 resulting in disqualification and a fine and a conviction for disorderly behaviour in 2000 resulting in a fine of $300.
[70] I am satisfied that there should be a reduction in the sentence having regard, in particular, to the situation of your three young children. And that is considering their interests. I note that the probation officer was also advised by your Family Court lawyer that an application had been made for the children to spend an added period of time with you, compared with their mother, under a joint parenting order because – so your lawyer said – the children have requested more time with you.
[71] In addition, and as I have said, in large measure you are to be treated as a first offender. These matters would bring a prison sentence below 2 years. A sentence of home detention can therefore be imposed as a matter of law. I am satisfied there should be a sentence of home detention. There will be a sentence in addition of 200 hours community work. That is to reflect the relative gravity of the offence that you were involved in and perhaps better to bring home to you the gravity of it and the weight of the jury’s decision.
Formal sentences
[72] I am now going to impose the formal sentences. I will deal with the sentencing in the order that I have made these comments. I am going to ask each of you to stand in turn and then once I have imposed the sentence you can sit down and at the end of that you will all stand down. I am just going to say at this point – if there is any obvious error in what I am now doing would counsel please tell me. I have had to try and factor in a large number of counts.
[73] Mr Duncan, would you please stand.
(a) For the lead offence of manufacturing methamphetamine, being count
4, you are sentenced to imprisonment for 15 years.
(b)For the two conspiracies to manufacture methamphetamine, being counts 101 and 129, you are sentenced to imprisonment for 9 years 6 months. And I interpolate here what should be obvious – all of these sentences are concurrent. The lead offence will be the total, and that applies to everybody.
(c) For possession of methamphetamine for supply, that is count 102, the sentence is 7 years imprisonment.
(d) For the conspiracies to supply methamphetamine in counts 80 and
147, the sentence is 18 months imprisonment.
(e) For the four conspiracies to supply pseudoephedrine or precursors or materials for methamphetamine manufacture in counts 21, 114, 115 and 143, the sentence is 18 months imprisonment.
(f) Count 97 for supplying methamphetamine, the sentence is 2 years imprisonment.
(g)There are 15 counts of possession of precursors, materials or equipment for methamphetamine manufacture, being counts 103, 106,
107, 108, 109, 110, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137 and 139, and on each of those the sentence is 18 months imprisonment.
(h)On count 124, which is conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and count 141, which is an attempt to pervert the course of justice, the sentence on each is 3 years imprisonment.
(i)For conspiracy to money launder in count 150, the sentence is 3 years imprisonment.
(j)For money laundering in count 151, the sentence is 2 years imprisonment.
(k)There are three outstanding counts on which the Crown offers no evidence, and you are discharged on those and they are counts 51, 145 and 148.
[74] You should now take a seat. [75] Mr Bramley:
(a) On count 4 you are sentenced to imprisonment for 14 years and 5 months.
(b)On District Court count 23 you are sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years.
(c) On counts 13, 21 and 60, being conspiracies to supply precursors or pseudoephedrine, you are sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months.
(d)On counts 14 and 93, being conspiracies to supply methamphetamine, you are sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months.
(e) On count 105, being possession of the class B drug GBL, the sentence is 1 year imprisonment.
(f) On count 53 [conspiracy to supply GBL], 9 months imprisonment.
(g)Count 101, being conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, the sentence is 9 years imprisonment.
(h)On count 102, being possession of methamphetamine for supply, the sentence is 6 years 6 months imprisonment.
(i)There are seven High Court counts of possession of precursors, materials or equipment for methamphetamine manufacture, being counts 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109 and 110, and the sentence on each is 18 months imprisonment.
(j)There are 11 District Court counts of possession of precursors, material or equipment for methamphetamine manufacture, and the sentence on those is 18 months imprisonment.
(k)On count 123, which is attempting to pervert the course of justice, the sentence is 3 years imprisonment.
(l)On count 149, being money laundering, the sentence is 18 months imprisonment.
(m)And on District Court count 25, which is possession of cannabis for supply, the sentence is 2 years imprisonment.
(n)You are discharged on High Court count 51 and on District Court count 17 because the Crown offers no evidence on those counts.
(a) On counts 101 and 129, being the two conspiracies to manufacture methamphetamine, the sentence on each is 4 years 5 months imprisonment. So the total is 4 years 5 months imprisonment.
(b)On counts 121 and 122, being offers to supply methamphetamine and supplying methamphetamine, the sentence is 2 years imprisonment.
(c) There are three counts of possessing a precursor and supplying a precursor for methamphetamine manufacture, being counts 103, 113 and 138, and the sentence on each is 18 months imprisonment.
(d) On count 114, being conspiracy to supply a precursor, the sentence is
1 year imprisonment.
(e) On count 124, being conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, the sentence is 2 years imprisonment.
(f) On count 79 and 120, being two counts of offering to supply GBL, the sentence is 9 months imprisonment.
(g)You are discharged on the following counts in the High Court indictment because the Crown offers no evidence. These are counts
106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 116 and 123. [78] You should take a seat.
[79] Mr H:
(a) On count 101, being conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, you are sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years 4 months.
(b)On counts 90 and 117, being two counts of supplying GBL, you are sentenced to 9 months imprisonment.
(c) On counts 119 and 146, being two counts of conspiracy to supply
GBL, you are sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.
(d)There are five offences of possessing precursors, material or equipment for methamphetamine manufacture, being counts 106, 107,
108, 109 and 110, and the sentence on each is 12 months imprisonment.
(e) On count 123, being an attempt to pervert the course of justice, you are sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
(f) On count 128, being conspiracy to supply a precursor, the sentence is
9 months imprisonment.
(g) You are discharged on count 124. [80] Take a seat.
[81] Ms Clark:
(a) On count 4, being possession of cannabis for supply, you are sentenced to home detention for 9 months. This is subject to the particular conditions that are recorded in the pre-sentence report. In addition, you are sentenced to 80 hours community work. The home detention sentence and the other aspects of sentence are to start on Monday, 11 February 2013 at 10:00 am. In addition, the current sentence of intensive supervision is cancelled – it is effectively subsumed into the home detention.
(b)On count 3, you are sentenced to home detention for 1 month to be served concurrently with the home detention for the other offence.
(a) You are sentenced to home detention for 12 months. It is subject to the conditions recorded in the pre-sentence report. In addition, you are sentenced to community work of 200 hours.
[84] You should take a seat.
Woodhouse J
Solicitors / Counsel:
Mr G Hollister-Jones / Mr N Belton, Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Office of the Crown Solicitor,
Tauranga
Mr J Bergseng, Bergseng & Co., Solicitors, Tauranga (for Mr Duncan) Mr P G Mabey QC, Barrister, Tauranga (for Mr Bramley)
Mr A C Balme, Barrister, Tauranga (for Mr Corlett)
Mr A F Rickard-Simms, Pacific Coast Law, Solicitors, Papamoa (for Ms Clark aka Russell) Mr D L Bates, Barrister, Tauranga (for Mr Walker)
Ms M Pecotic, Barrister, Auckland (for Mr H)
ANNEXURE 1
SCHEDULE OF HIGH COURT INDICTMENT OFFENCES FOR SENTENCING
Count # (203 count indictmt)
Count # (164 count indictmt)
Count # (77 count indictmt)
Count # (5 count indictmt)
Charge Duncan
R A
Bramley Corlett Clark
(Russell)
Hastie
(see n 3)
Walker Williams H (see n 2)
1 1 1 See note 1
2 2 2 See note 1
3 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 3.3.10 P 1
4 3 Manufactured methamphetamine – on or about P P
7.3.10
5 4 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 8.3.10 P 1
6 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – between P 1
8.3.10 and 10.3.10
7 Supplied methamphetamine – 11.3.10 and 12.3.10 P 4
8 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 12.3.10 P 1
and13.3.10
9 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 12.3.10 P 1
10 10 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 13.3.10 P 1
11 11 Supplied methamphetamine – 13.3.10 P 2
12 12 5 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 19.3.10 P 1
and 20.3.10
13 13 6 Conspired to supply precursor substance P
(pseudoephedrine) – 20.3.10
14 14 7 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 21.3.10 P
15 15 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 24.3.10 P 1
16 16 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 26.3.10 P 1
17 17 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 27.3.10 P 1
18 18 Conspired to sell cannabis – 8.4.10 P 3
19 19 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 9.4.10 P 1
20 20 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 9.4.10 P 1
21 21 8 Conspired to supply precursor substance P P
(pseudoephedrine) – 9.4.10
22 22 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – between P 1
9.4.10 and 11.4.10
Count # (203 count indictmt)
Count # (164 count indictmt)
Count # (77 count indictmt)
Count # (5 count indictmt)
Charge Duncan
R A
Bramley Corlett Clark
(Russell)
Hastie
(see n 3)
Walker Williams H (see n 2)
23 23 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 11.4.10 P 1
24 24 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 13.4.10 P 1
25 25 9 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 14.4.10 P 1
26 26 Supplied methamphetamine – 15.4.10 P 2
27 27 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 15.4.10 P 1
28 28 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 15.4.10 P 1
29 29 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 16.4.10 P 4
30 30 Conspired to sell cannabis – 16.4.10 and 17.4.10 P 3
31 31 10 Manufactured methamphetamine – between 17.4.10 P 2
and 19.4.10
32 32 Offered to sell cannabis – 20.4.10 P 5
33 33 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – between P 1
20.4.10 and 22.4.10
34 34 11 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 21.4.10 P 1
35 35 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 22.4.10 P 1
36 36 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 22.4.10 P 1
37 37 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 22.4.10 P 1
38 38 Conspired to sell cannabis – 23.4.10 and 24.4.10 P 3
39 39 12 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 24.4.10 P 1
40 40 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 27.4.10 P 1
41 41 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 27.4.10 P 1
42 42 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 28.4.10 P 1
and 29.4.10
43 43 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 28.4.10 P 1
and 29.4.10
44 44 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 30.4.10 P 1
45 45 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 30.4.10 P 1
46 46 Supplied methamphetamine – on or about 4.5.10 P 2
47 47 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 6.5.10 P 1
48 48 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 6.5.10 P 1
49 49 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 11.5.10 P 1
Count # (203 count indictmt)
Count # (164 count indictmt)
Count # (77 count indictmt)
Count # (5 count indictmt)
Charge Duncan
R A
Bramley Corlett Clark
(Russell)
Hastie
(see n 3)
Walker Williams H (see n 2)
50 50 Supplied methamphetamine – 12.5.10 P 2
51 51 13 Conspired to supply material – 12.5.10 (NEO) (NEO)
52 52 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 12.5.10 P 1
53 53 14 Conspired to supply GBL – 12.5.10 and 13.5.10 P P 3
54 54 15 Possession of methamphetamine for supply – P 4
between 12.5.10 and 15.5.10
55 55 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 15.5.10 P 1
56 56 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 15.5.10 P 1
57 57 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 15.5.10 P 1
58 58 16 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 15.5.10 P 1
59 59 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 19.5.10 P 1
60 60 17 Conspired to supply precursor substance P
(pseudoephedrine) – 20.5.10
61 61 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 21.5.10 P 1
62 62 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 21.5.10 P 1
63 63 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 22.5.10 P 1
64 64 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 22.5.10 P 1
65 65 18 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 23.5.10 P 1
and 24.5.10
66 66 19 Supplied methamphetamine – on or about 25.5.10 P 5
67 67 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 10.6.10 P 4
68 68 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 16.6.10 P 4
69 69 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 20.6.10 P 1
and 21.6.10
70 70 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 22.6.10 P 1
71 71 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 26.6.10 P 1
72 72 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 26.6.10 P 1
73 73 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 26.6.10 P 1
and 27.6.10
74 74 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 28.7.10 P 1
75 75 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 30.7.10 P 1
Count # (203 count indictmt)
Count # (164 count indictmt)
Count # (77 count indictmt)
Count # (5 count indictmt)
Charge Duncan
R A
Bramley Corlett Clark
(Russell)
Hastie
(see n 3)
Walker Williams H (see n 2)
76 76 20 Permits premises to be used for the manufacture of P 6
methamphetamine – between 1.4.10 and 30.7.10
77 77 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – between P 1
2.8.10 and 4.8.10
78 78 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 4.8.10 P 1
79 79 21 Offered to supply class B GBL – 7.8.10 P
80 80 22 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 8.8.10 P
81 81 23 Possession of methamphetamine for supply – on or P 7
about 8.8.10
82 82 Supplied methamphetamine – on or about 10.8.10 P 2
83 83 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 10.8.10 P 1
84 84 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 12.8.10 P 1
85 85 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 12.8.10 P 1
86 86 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 14.8.10 P 1
87 87 Supplied methamphetamine – on or about 16.8.10 P 2
88 88 24 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 17.8.10 P 1
89 89 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 18.8.10 P 1
90 90 25 Supplied class B GBL – 19.8.10 P
91 91 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 19.8.10 P 1
92 92 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 20.8.10 P 1
93 93 26 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 20.8.10 P
94 94 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 22.8.10 P 1
and 23.8.10
95 95 Supplied methamphetamine – on or about 23.8.10 P 2
96 96 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 24.8.10 P 1
97 97 27 Supplied methamphetamine – 26.8.10 P
98 98 See note 4
99 99 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 27.8.10 P 1
100 100 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 28.8.10 P 4
101 101 28 Conspired to manufacture methamphetamine –
between 2.8.10 and 29.8.10
P P P P 8 P
Count # (203 count indictmt)
Count # (164 count indictmt)
Count # (77 count indictmt)
Count # (5 count indictmt)
Charge Duncan
R A
Bramley Corlett Clark
(Russell)
Hastie
(see n 3)
Walker Williams H (see n 2)
102 102 29 Possession of methamphetamine for supply –
29.8.10
103 103 30 Possession of precursor substance (pseudoephedrine)
– 29.8.10
104 104 31 Possession of precursor substance (hydrochloric acid) – 29.8.10
P P
P P P
P 9 (NEO)
105 105 32 Possession of class B GBL for supply – 29.8.10 P 10 (NEO)
106 106 33 Possession of precursor substance (toluene) –
30.8.10
P P (NEO) P
107 107 34 Possession of material (sodium hydroxide) – 30.8.10 P P (NEO) P
108 108 35 Possession of equipment capable of being used to manufacture methamphetamine – 30.8.10
109 109 36 Possession of equipment capable of being used to manufacture methamphetamine – 24.9.10
P P (NEO) P
P P (NEO) P
110 110 37 Possession of hypophosphorous acid – 24.9.10 P P (NEO) P
111 111 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 2.9.10 P 4
112 112 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 2.9.10 P 1
113 113 38 Supplied precursor substance (pseudoephedrine) –
4.9.10
114 114 39 Conspired to supply precursor substance (toluene) –
6.9.10
115 115 40 Conspired to supply Iodine – between 10.9.10 and
17.9.10
P
P P
P P 6
116 116 41 Possession for supply of class B GBL – 11.9.10 (NEO)
117 117 42 Supplied class B GBL – on or about 12.9.10 P
118 118 Supplied class B GBL – on or about 12.9.10 – See ?
note 5
119 119 43 Conspired to supply class B GBL – 16.9.10 P 11 P
120 120 44 Offered to supply class B GBL – 13.9.10 P
121 121 45 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 13.9.10 P
122 122 46 Supplied methamphetamine – on or about 13.9.10 P
123 123 47 Attempted to pervert the course of justice – between
5.8.10 and 21.9.10 – See note 5
P (NEO) ? P
Count # (203 count indictmt)
Count # (164 count indictmt)
Count # (77 count indictmt)
Count # (5 count indictmt)
Charge Duncan
R A
Bramley Corlett Clark
(Russell)
Hastie
(see n 3)
Walker Williams H (see n 2)
124 124 48 Conspired to pervert the course of justice – between
29.8.10 and 21.9.10
125 125 49 Supplied equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine – on or about 19.9.10
P P P 12 (NEO)
13 (NEO)
126 126 50 Supplied methamphetamine – 19.9.10 P 14
127 127 51 3 Supplied equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine – on or about 20.9.10
128 128 52 Conspired to supply precursor substance
(pseudoephedrine) – 20.9.10
P
P 15 P
129 129 53 Conspired to manufacture methamphetamine –
between 28.8.10 and 20.9.10
130 130 54 Possession of precursor substance (hydrochloric acid) – 20.9.10
131 131 55 Possession of precursor substance (acetone) –
20.9.10
P P P 16 P 7
P P 8
P P 9
132 132 56 Possession of iodine – 20.9.10 P P 12
133 133 57 Possession of sodium hydroxide – 20.9.10 P P 13
134 134 58 Possession of hypophosphorous acid – 20.9.10 P P 14
135 135 59 Possession of precursor substance (pseudoephedrine)
– 20.9.10
136 136 60 Possession of precursor substance (sulphuric acid) –
20.9.10
137 137 61 Possession of equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine – 20.9.10
138 138 62 Supplied precursor substance (pseudoephedrine) –
13.9.10
139 139 63 Possession of precursor substance (pseudoephedrine)
– between 13.9.10 and 19.9.10
P P 10
P P 11
P P 15
P
P
140 140 64 4 Possession of cannabis for supply – 20.9.10 P
141 141 65 Attempted to pervert the course of justice – between
20.9.10 and 21.9.10
142 142 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – between
21.9.10 and 23.9.10
143 143 66 Conspired to supply precursor substance (acetone) –
between 23.9.10 and 25.9.10
P P 16
P 1
P P 17
Count # (203 count indictmt)
Count # (164 count indictmt)
Count # (77 count indictmt)
Count # (5 count indictmt)
Charge Duncan
R A
Bramley Corlett Clark
(Russell)
Hastie
(see n 3)
Walker Williams H (see n 2)
144 144 Supplied methamphetamine – 23.9.10 P 2
145 145 67 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 24.9.10 (NEO)
146 146 68 Conspired to supply class B GBL – 25.9.10 P 17 P
147 147 69 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 25.9.10 P P 1
148 148 70 Money laundering – 10.8.10 (NEO)
149 149 71 Money laundering – 17.8.10 P P 18
150 150 72 5 Money laundering conspiracy – between 3.9.10 and P P
25.9.10
151 151 73 Money laundering – between 7.9.10 and 25.8.10 P
152 152 74 See note 6
153 153 75 See note 6
154 154 76 See note 6
155 155 77 See note 6
156 -203 156-164 See note 7
TOTAL NO. OF HIGH COURT COUNTS TO BE SENTENCED ON:
BRAMLEY DISTRICT COURT COUNTS (see note 8):
30 19 11 2 15 1 17 12
13
Notes:
“NEO” denotes charges on which the Crown will offer no evidence, resulting in discharge of the particular defendant on that charge.
1. These counts were against Mr Duncan and Mr Bramley. They were found not guilty.
2. Original counts against Mr Williams severed off to separate indictment. He pleaded guilty to all charges. The numbers in the Williams column refer to the count numbers in the new indictment against him alone.
3. Original counts against Ms Hastie severed off to separate indictment. She pleaded guilty to all charges save counts 9, 10 and 13 - NEO. The numbers in the Hastie column refer to the count numbers in the new indictment against her alone.
4. Count 98 was a charge against Mrs A J Duncan. She has already been sentenced.
5. Count 118 (in the 203 count indictment and in the 164 count indictment) was a charge against Ms Hastie. Count 123 (in the 203 count indictment and in
the 164 count indictment) was a charge against Ms Hastie and others. There are no charges against Ms Hastie in this regard in the 77 count indictment or in the separate indictment against Ms Hastie alone.
6. Counts 152-155 (in the 203 count indictment – counts 74-77 in the 77 count indictment) against Mr Duncan have been severed off for separate trial.
7. Counts 156-203 (in the 203 count indictment) were charges against Mr Cooper alone. He has already been sentenced.
8. Mr Bramley’s District Court counts for sentence are noted in the body of the sentencing comments.
ANNEXURE 2
Baird and Ors v R [2012] NZCA 430
Beckham v R [2012] NZCA 603
Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135; [2011] 1 NZLR 607; (2010) 24 CRNZ 966
Police v McIvor HC Palmerston North CRI-2010-054-2878, 16 February 2011
R v Anderson HC Christchurch CRI-2009-009-5799, 29 October 2009
R v Beckham and Anor HC Auckland CRI-2008-404-029112, 12 August 2011
R v Brazendale HC Auckland CRI-2009-092-17133, 20 August 2010
R v Bryant [2009] NZCA 287
R v Clarke and Ors [2012] NZHC 2146
R v Cole [2012] NZHC 2482
R v Connolly [2012] NZHC 1950
R v Collings [2008] NZCA 30
R v Cook HC Dunedin CRI-2010-012-005126, 17 April 2011
R v Cooper HC Tauranga CRI-2010-070-7804, 16 March 2012
R v Duncan [2009] NZCA 18
R v Duncan [2012] NZHC 1208
R v Elliot HC Gisborne CRI-2009-016-3799, 27 August 2010
R v Faifua CA287/05, 27 March 2006
R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA)
R v Filer [2010] NZHC149
R v Gollop and Ors HC Auckland CRI 2006-092-016424, 13 February 2009
R v Gray [2009] NZCA 31
R v Hart [2012] NZHC 2137
R v Howell HC Rotorua CRI-2006-063-4690, 30 May 2008
R v Huang and Anor HC Auckland CRI-2006-019-8458, 8 May 2009
R v Litt HC Hamilton CRI-2011-024-326, 25 August 2011
R v McQuade HC Auckland CRI-2006-019-8458, 10 September 2008
R v O’Connell HC Palmerston North CRI-2004-031-1063, 15 July 2005
R v Parekura HC Rotorua CRI-2009-087-779, 18 August 2009
R v Porter-Riley HC Auckland CRI-2010-092-14703, 12 April 2011
R v Potene HC Tauranga CRI-2008-070-2553, 8 August 2008
R v Rakatau [2007] NZCA 21
R v Rhodes [2009] NZCA 486
R v Scott CA170/05, 9 November 2005
R v Simanu and Anor HC Auckland CRI-2008-404-020453, 16 December 2010
R v Situ [2012] NZHC 3008
R v Skinner HC Auckland CRI-2008-092-14599, 30 August 2010
R v Stevenson DC Tauranga CRI-2009-070-003516, 24 April 2012
R v Tang and Ors HC Auckland CRI-2009-004-13439, 6 October 2011
R v Te Ata HC Rotorua CRI-2008-063-2139, 28 August 2008
R v Terewi [1999] 3 NZLR 62 (CA)
R v Te Rure [2008] 3 NZLR 629 (CA)
R v Wallace CA415/98, 16 December 1998
R v Yeh HC Auckland CRI-2007-004-022697, 29 October 2010
2
0
0