R v Duthie - [2022] NZHC 3023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2021-419-79

[2022] NZHC 3023

THE KING

v

RICHARD ALAN DUTHIE

Hearing: 17 November 2022

Appearances:

J Hamilton for the Crown

J D Munro for the Defendant

Sentencing:

17 November 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

Solicitors/counsel:
Hamilton Legal, Hamilton J D Munro, Auckland

R v DUTHIE [2022] NZHC 3023 [17 November 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Duthie, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(a)manufacturing methamphetamine (a representative charge). This is an offence pursuant to s 6(1)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment;

(b)possession of methamphetamine for supply. This is an offence pursuant to s 6(1)(f) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the maximum penalty is also life imprisonment;

(c)possession of equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine. This is an offence pursuant to s 12A(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.

Relevant facts

[2] The agreed summary of facts records that you were charged following an investigation by the Waikato Police Organised Crime Squad. The investigation commenced in December 2019. It focused on the large scale manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine in the Waikato area. The investigation uncovered a core group of people involved in the criminal enterprise. You were identified as having an association with a member of that group.

[3] You own a residential property in Lichfield. You were charged with, and by your plea you have acknowledged that you manufactured methamphetamine in the kitchen of that property. The amount of methamphetamine that you manufactured is not known but you accept that you manufactured the drug on at least one occasion.

[4] In July 2020, the police executed a search warrant on your property. They found the following items in a safe in your bedroom:

(a)a container holding 92 grams of methamphetamine;

(b)a case containing 17 ziplock bags, each holding approximately
20.4 grams of methamphetamine; and

(c)$41,510 in cash.

The total amount of methamphetamine found was 438.8 grams.

[5]Police also located the following items at your property:

(a)162 milligrams of methamphetamine hydrochloride dried on a glass baking dish;

(b)1,615 milligrams of methamphetamine hydrochloride within plastic containers (dried and in liquid form);

(c)various items of glassware; and

(d)numerous indicia of supply, including unused ziplock bags, NIK (drug testing) kits, a money counter and electronic scales.

Pre-sentence report

[6] You are 56 years old and identify as New Zealand European. You have an extensive criminal history dating back to 1983. Many of your convictions involve drugs, but you also have convictions for violence, firearms and driving related offending. Notably, in 2008 you were sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment on various charges including possession of methamphetamine and LSD for supply, supplying methamphetamine, possession of equipment/material with intent and possession of methamphetamine utensils. The report writer characterised your recent methamphetamine offending as being “a dangerous escalation in prolific substance-related offending”.

[7] In explanation, you said that…

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 Duthie

Details

AGLC: R v Duthie [2022] NZHC 3023
Case: [2022] NZHC 3023
Decision Date: 17 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Duthie involved the defendant, Richard Alan Duthie, who appeared for sentencing after pleading guilty to charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine for supply, and possessing equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine. The charges stemmed from an investigation by the Waikato Police Organised Crime Squad into large-scale methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution in the Waikato area. Duthie was identified as part of a core group involved in the criminal enterprise and had manufactured the drug at his residence. Police seized a significant amount of methamphetamine, cash, and equipment related to drug manufacturing during a search of his property.

The court had to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the nature and quantity of the drugs involved, as well as Duthie's role in the criminal enterprise. The court accepted that the possession of methamphetamine for supply was the lead offence and set the starting point at nine years' imprisonment, reflecting the quantity of drugs involved and Duthie's significant role. An additional year was added to the starting point to account for the other charges, bringing the total to ten years. Various discounts were applied, including for Duthie's guilty pleas, his personal circumstances, and the forfeiture order affecting half of his property equity. After considering all factors, the court sentenced Duthie to four years and nine months' imprisonment for each of the possession and manufacturing charges, to be served concurrently, and one year for the possession of equipment charge. Additionally, the court ordered the forfeiture of cash and the destruction of drugs and equipment used in the offending.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of accountability, deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, balanced against the mitigating factors presented by Duthie's personal history and circumstances. The final sentence reflected the court's assessment of the seriousness of the offending and the need to address the underlying issues contributing to Duthie's criminal behaviour.

Orders