R v Evans - [2016] NZHC 2475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-085-006779 [2016] NZHC 2475

THE QUEEN

v

PETER WILLIAM EVANS

Counsel:
P K Feltham for Crown

S N Hewson for Defendant

Sentence:

18 October 2016

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Evans, you are to be sentenced this morning in relation to the following charges:

(1) One charge of possession of a Class A controlled drug for supply

(methamphetamine).1

(2) One charge of possession of a Class B controlled drug for supply

(fantasy).2

(3) Two representative charges of supplying a Class B controlled drug

(fantasy).3

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f). Maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f). Maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 6(1)(c). Maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.

(4) One charge of offering to supply a Class B controlled drug

(morphine).4

(5) One charge of possession of a Class B controlled drug (fantasy).5

(6) One charge of participation in an organised criminal group.6

[2] You pleaded guilty to those charges after I gave you a sentence indication. I reached a provisional sentence of four years and four months’ imprisonment. You accepted this indication on 15 September 2016.

[3] I noted that further factors may be able to be taken into account at sentencing depending on the contents of any pre-sentence reports and additional submissions. A pre-sentence report, comprehensive alcohol and drug assessment report and your counsel Mr Hewson’s additional submissions are now available to me.

[4] This morning I shall:

(1) summarise your offending;

(2) explain the starting point I have adopted;

(3) explain the adjustments I will make to the starting point;

(4) refer to what deductions for personal mitigating factors are available;

and

(5) explain your final sentence.

Your offending

[5] Since early 2013, the investigation known as “Operation Fantail” targeted a

large scale methamphetamine, GHB and GBL (commonly known as “Fantasy”)

4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c). Maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 7(1)(a) and (2)(b). Maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A. Maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.

supply network. You are one of the defendants alleged to have played a significant role in the sale and distribution of Class A and Class B controlled drugs.

[6] You are the current President of the Capital City Chapter of the Highway 61

Motorcycle Club. You have a significant shareholding interest in the company that owns the headquarters at Ropa Lane in Maupuia and you have resided at that address for at least 20 years. You have exercised control over the club’s activities.

[7] You allowed Mr McKinley to live at the headquarters in early 2013 and arrange the supply of methamphetamine to trusted associates. They would meet at the headquarters or nearby. On 28 June 2013, the police executed a search warrant and Mr McKinley was arrested for breaking his parole conditions.

[8] In carrying out your drug dealing, you used a variety…

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 Evans

Details

AGLC: R v Evans [2016] NZHC 2475
Case: [2016] NZHC 2475
Decision Date: 18 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Evans is a criminal matter concerning Peter William Evans, who was found guilty of multiple drug-related charges and participation in an organised criminal group. The court heard arguments from counsel on both sides, with P K Feltham representing the Crown and S N Hewson representing the defendant. The sentencing took place on 18 October 2016. The primary legal issues the court had to decide were the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the adjustments to be made to this starting point, and the extent of deductions for personal mitigating factors. The court also needed to consider the final sentence that would satisfy the purposes and objectives of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The court began by summarising Evans's offending, noting his significant role in a large-scale methamphetamine, GHB, and GBL supply network. The court acknowledged Evans's position within the organised criminal group and the planning and premeditation involved in his drug dealing activities. The court adopted a starting point of five years’ imprisonment for the lead charge, considering the quantities of drugs involved and Evans's role within the wider operation. The court then adjusted the starting point by adding six months to account for the possession of methamphetamine for supply, resulting in a starting point of five and a half years’ imprisonment. The court considered personal mitigating factors, such as Evans's prospects of rehabilitation and his guilty plea. Although the court was willing to give a discount for rehabilitation, it did not find sufficient remorse demonstrated by Evans. The court did, however, give a discount of slightly over 20 percent for the guilty plea. This resulted in a final sentence of three years and 11 months’ imprisonment, which the court found to be the least restrictive outcome that was appropriate in the circumstances.

The final orders of the court were that Evans was sentenced to three years and 11 months’ imprisonment on the two representative charges of supplying a Class B controlled drug. All other charges resulted in a sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment, with those sentences running concurrently.

Orders