R v Finlayson - [2017] NZHC 1198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2015-088-3515 [2017] NZHC 1198

THE QUEEN

v

DILLON FINLAYSON

Hearing: 2 June 2017

Appearances:

N J Dore for Crown
L Postlewaight for Defendant

Judgment:

2 June 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v FINLAYSON [2017] NZHC 1198 [2 June 2017]

[1] Mr Finalyson, you pleaded guilty to 24 charges of supplying methamphetamine and supplying cannabis.1 By far the greatest number of the charges related to supplying methamphetamine. The Crown has offered no evidence on six remaining charges. Those are charges 6, 13, 16, 17, 18 and 29 in the current Crown charge notice. You are now discharged on those charges under s 147 of the Crimes Act 1961.

[2] The maximum sentence in respect of the methamphetamine-related charges is life imprisonment. The maximum sentence in relation to the cannabis charges is seven years imprisonment.

[3] You entered your guilty pleas after I conducted a sentence indication hearing on 12 April 2017.2 In my sentence indication remarks, I set out the facts underpinning your offending. I do not propose to repeat those here. My sentence indication remarks will be annexed to and form part of these sentencing remarks. The short point is that the police operation in which your offending was detected revealed that you were a busy retailer of both methamphetamine and cannabis. You sold cannabis in half-ounce and ounce lots. You tended to sell methamphetamine in quantities of grams and half-grams.

[4] I took a starting point of four years four months imprisonment to reflect your culpability on all the charges. I then applied a discount of one year two months to reflect guilty pleas in the event that they were to be entered shortly after the hearing. That would result in an end sentence of three years two months imprisonment before
taking into account other mitigating factors.3

1      Supplying methamphetamine (x 8), Offering to supply methamphetamine (x 13), Possessing methamphetamine for supply (x 3), Offering to sell cannabis (x 1), Selling cannabis (x 1), Offering to sell cannabis (x 2), Offering to supply methamphetamine (x 14), Supplying methamphetamine (x 9), Conspiring to supply methamphetamine (x 3), Possession methamphetamine for supply (x 3), Conspiring to supply methamphetamine (x 3), Possession of methamphetamine (x 1).
2      R v Finlayson [2017] NZHC 725.
3      At [9] of the sentence indication the end sentence indication is erroneously recorded as being three years three months.

Mitigating factors

[5] As I told you during the sentence indication hearing, the Court can only apply modest discounts to reflect personal mitigating factors other than guilty pleas. Your offending is serious drug offending and in the case of that type of offending personal circumstances count for much less than they ordinarily do.

[6] The greatest mitigating factor I detect is that you appear to have a degree of insight into your offending. You were clearly led into it out of financial necessity and you turned to dealing in drugs as a way of supporting your family.…

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 Finlayson

Details

AGLC: R v Finlayson [2017] NZHC 1198
Case: [2017] NZHC 1198
Decision Date: 2 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dillon Finlayson was convicted of multiple drug supply charges, including methamphetamine and cannabis. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Whangarei, with the sentencing remarks made on 2 June 2017. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Finlayson, taking into account the nature and extent of his offending, as well as any mitigating factors. The primary legal issue was to decide on the appropriate sentence for Finlayson's drug supply activities, considering the maximum penalties for the offences and the mitigating factors presented.

The court considered Finlayson's culpability, the seriousness of the drug offences, and the mitigating factors such as his insight into his offending and his efforts during his time on remand. The court applied a starting point of four years and four months imprisonment, reflecting Finlayson's culpability on all charges. A discount of one year and two months was applied to account for the guilty pleas, resulting in an end sentence of three years and two months imprisonment before considering other mitigating factors. The court further reduced the sentence by two months, taking into account Finlayson's insight into his offending and his efforts on remand, resulting in an effective sentence of three years imprisonment.

The court sentenced Finlayson to three years imprisonment on each of the methamphetamine-related charges, to be served concurrently, and to nine months imprisonment on the cannabis charges, also to be served concurrently with each other and with the methamphetamine-related sentences. The court's reasoning and outcome demonstrate the importance of considering the nature and extent of the offending, as well as any mitigating factors, in determining an appropriate sentence for drug supply offences.

Orders