R v Filer - [2012] NZHC 149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2011-404-47 [2012] NZHC 149

THE QUEEN

v

SCOTT WARREN FILER

Hearing: 3 February 2012

Counsel: B D Tantrum & M Williams for Crown
A C Balme for Prisoner

Judgment: 3 February 2012

SENTENCE OF KEANE J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R V SCOTT WARREN FILER HC AK CRI 2011-404-47 [3 February 2012]

[1] Scott Filer, at your trial you were found guilty of eight offences for which you are now for sentence.

[2] Between 1 October 2009 - 15 February 2010 and 16 February 2010 - 17 May

2010 you, together with Steven Mehrtens, manufactured methamphetamine, in the sense at least that you were indispensable parties to that offence. On 17 May 2010 you conspired with Mr Mehrtens to continue manufacture. On 15 November 2009 you offered methamphetamine to Delia Fonotia, a co-offender. On 23 December
2009 you, together with Mr Mehrtens, possessed methamphetamine for supply. On

19 April 2010 you, together with Mr Mehrtens, supplied methamphetamine. On 17

May 2010 you possessed methamphetamine for supply.

[3] The Crown's case against you at your trial was that you and Mr Mehrtens offended co-extensively. He was tried in his absence. You at trial denied manufacture. At the very most you conceded that you may have been a party to the purchase of pseudoephedrine and to its supply. That was also Mr Mehrtens' case at trial.

[4] Clearly the jury accepted that the Crown had made out its case that you were at least a party in the sense that you purchased pseudoephedrine indispensable to large scale manufacture yourself, and that you were so closely linked to that manufacture that you intended it take place. So, in that sense, the jury appears to have accepted that you were a central player in the manufacture.

Course of offending

[5] The Crown's case against you at trial, which as I have said the jury accepted, was that you and Mr Mehrtens, each of you then living in or near Whangamata, were privy to manufacture in that area.

[6] You were then serving a sentence of home detention but, the Crown's case was, and the jury evidently accepted, while he saw to any transactions beyond

Whangamata, most typically in Auckland, you were certainly active by telephone. You were also active in Whangamata transactions.

[7] The Crown's case is that your first source of pseudoephedrine supply was Delia Fonotia and that she supplied to you on at least seven occasions. If she did so, she would have supplied you in the vicinity of 36 sets. The Crown's case is that, though the recipients in her other supply counts were not identified, you could well have been the recipient. You were her principal market.

[8] Ultimately, the Crown's case is, you could have received from her as much as

67 sets of pseudoephedrine, yielding potentially three kilograms of methamphetamine. At the least, the Crown case was, you would have received half that, if not more.

[9]…

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 Filer

Details

AGLC: R v Filer [2012] NZHC 149
Case: [2012] NZHC 149
Decision Date: 3 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Filer, the defendant, Scott Warren Filer, was convicted of eight drug-related offences, including manufacturing, conspiring to manufacture, and possessing methamphetamine for supply. The case involved a joint venture between Filer and Steven Mehrtens, who was tried in absentia. The jury found Filer to be a central player in the methamphetamine manufacturing operation. The Crown argued that Filer and Mehrtens manufactured over two kilograms of methamphetamine and conspired to continue manufacturing. The defence contested the extent of Filer's involvement in the manufacturing process. The court considered the evidence and concluded that Filer was a principal player, responsible for obtaining pseudoephedrine on a large scale, which would have yielded three to four kilograms of methamphetamine.

The court acknowledged Filer's pre-existing convictions and his escalating involvement in drug-related activities, particularly his increasing methamphetamine use. The court also considered the personal circumstances of Filer, including his previous employment and his claim that he was not addicted to methamphetamine. However, the court found that these factors had little relevance in the sentencing of such serious drug offences. The primary purposes of sentencing in this case were denunciation and deterrence.

The Crown sought a starting point of 20 years imprisonment for the manufacturing offences, arguing that Filer and Mehrtens were complicit in manufacturing over two kilograms of methamphetamine. The defence, on the other hand, argued for a starting point of 12 years, contending that the quantity of pseudoephedrine attributed to Filer was exaggerated. The court accepted the Crown's position and sentenced Filer to 17 years and 4 months imprisonment for the manufacturing offences, with concurrent sentences for the other offences. The court also ordered the forfeiture of the paraphernalia involved in the offending.

Orders