R v Edwards - [2012] NZHC 2959

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI 2011-054-463 [2012] NZHC 2959

THE QUEEN

v

HUIA MAXWELL EDWARDS

Hearing: 8 November 2012 (Heard at Wellington)

Counsel: J Eng for Crown
M J Bullock for Accused

Sentence: 8 November 2012

SENTENCE OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1] Mr Edwards, you are for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply and one charge of manufacturing methamphetamine. That guilty plea came after I gave a sentence indication of nine and a half years’ imprisonment.

[2] Your offending was discovered as part of a Police investigation known as Operation Stamp which intercepted communications into a large methamphetamine network of which you were a member. You were based in Hamilton. In partnership with your co-offenders, you would receive precursor material, organise its manufacture into methamphetamine, and ensure that it was then delivered typically
to Palmerston North.

R V HUIA MAXWELL EDWARDS HC PMN CRI 2011-054-463 [8 November 2012]

[3] More specifically, on 20 November 2010 you provided methamphetamine, somewhere between 400 and 800 grams to a co-offender to be transported to Palmerston North. Subsequently on 3 January 2011, you met your co-offender and collected further precursor material.

[4] You then, on 12 January of that year, after the manufacture into methamphetamine, organised for it to be uplifted to another co-offender. On this occasion I think just over 400 grams was involved. And so the arrangements that you entered into for the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine was somewhere between 1.2 and 1.6 kilograms of the drug. This was obviously, therefore, very serious methamphetamine dealing and it was commercial dealing.

[5] The pre-sentence report mentions that you are now 35 years of age and you have a partner of 18 years with four children. You have been on electronic bail until now. Your last income related job was three years ago. You say that you have no alcohol problems and have not smoked drugs yourself but you have said, however, you are motivated to attend drug counselling.

[6] The report notes that you are a patched member of the Mongrel Mob and in fact have held a position as president of the Mongrel Mob Aoteaora for the last ten years. But you tell the probation officer that you are stepping down from that and have made a decision to leave the gang.

[7] The probation officer says, understandably, that the gang lifestyle and culture is a major part of your offending. The probation officer says that you normalise your actions by repeatedly referring to the supply of methamphetamine as some form of lifestyle. Well of course it is not a lifestyle at all, Mr Edwards. What it is, is the supply of a serious drug to people which will often cause addiction and serious health problems for which you are, in part, responsible.

[8] You have some previous convictions; two drug convictions in 2006 when you were previously imprisoned and it is clear you learnt nothing from 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 Edwards

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards [2012] NZHC 2959
Case: [2012] NZHC 2959
Decision Date: 8 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Edwards, the defendant, Huia Maxwell Edwards, was sentenced by Justice Ronald Young at the High Court of New Zealand, Palmerston North Registry. Edwards had pleaded guilty to charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply and manufacturing methamphetamine. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Edwards, taking into account his criminal history, the nature and extent of his involvement in drug trafficking, and the mitigating factors presented.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the application of discounts for factors such as Edwards' guilty plea, the purity of the methamphetamine, and his compliance with bail conditions. Additionally, the court had to decide whether to apply any discount for the forfeiture of assets, namely $4,100 in cash and a Hummer motor vehicle. The Crown argued for a starting point of 13 to 15 years' imprisonment, whereas the defence suggested a starting point of 12 to 13 years.

The court determined that a starting point of 13 years' imprisonment was appropriate, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the large quantity of methamphetamine involved. Justice Young applied a 20% discount for Edwards' guilty plea, a modest reduction for his compliance with bail conditions, and a 7% discount for the purity of the methamphetamine. The court declined to apply any further discount for the forfeiture of assets, finding that the recovery of drug money did not warrant additional mitigation. Ultimately, the court sentenced Edwards to nine and a half years' imprisonment, to be served concurrently on both counts.

The final orders of the court were that Huia Maxwell Edwards be sentenced to nine and a half years' imprisonment on the charges of manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine, with the sentences to run concurrently. The court also ordered the forfeiture of $4,100 in cash and a Hummer motor vehicle, reflecting the proceeds of his criminal activities.

Orders