R v Goldsbury - [2014] NZHC 2577

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2012-070-4753 [2014] NZHC 2577

THE QUEEN

v

KARL RODNEY GOLDSBURY

Hearing: 15 October 2014

Appearances:

H A Wrigley for Crown
P G Mabey QC for Prisoner

Sentence:

15 October 2014

SENTENCE OF KEANE J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

R v Goldsbury [2014] NZHC 2577 [15 October 2014]

[1] Karl Goldsbury you appear for sentence for five offences after trial. The jury found you not guilty of four other offences.

[2] First, you are for sentence for an offence on 19 September 2012 at Pokeno. You then supplied some Asian males from Auckland with one litre of hypophosphorous acid, which is capable of being used to manufacture methamphetamine. You knew that was the purpose for which it was to be used.

[3] Your second offence was on 7 October 2012 at Tauranga. You then supplied methamphetamine to John Poi and Desmond Jury, who are members of the Gisborne chapter of the Mongrel Mob. You were then, and may be still, a member of the Maketu chapter. The quantity you supplied them was 8.6 grams of methamphetamine. That was established when they were arrested on the same day on their way back to Gisborne.

[4] Your third offence was on 3 December 2012. You were stopped at Ruahihi, travelling back from Hamilton to Tauranga. You then possessed 1.3 kilograms of iodine, which is also used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and that is why you had it. It was worth between $1,000 - $4,000.

[5] Your fourth, and primary, offence was between 7 – 9 December 2012. You conspired with Ryan Carroll, an associate of yours, and also with his employee, Terrence Jones, and in turn with his then partner, Tracey Farrow, to manufacture methamphetamine at 56 Park Road, Katikati. Mr Jones and Ms Farrow were the tenants of that address. Whether you manufactured, and the scale on which you did so, are the primary issues I have to resolve in sentencing you.

[6] Your fifth offence was at the Katikati address on 9 December, when the Armed Offenders’ Squad made its presence plain. You then wilfully attempted to defeat the course of justice by destroying equipment and materials for manufacture, assisted by Mr Jones. You were also charged with setting fire to the building but the jury acquitted you of arson. That did, however, coincide with the destruction of the equipment and that raises an issue in itself.

[7] In sentencing you for your lead offence, the conspiracy, I take into account all of your others, not just the fifth. The iodine you possessed on 3 December 2012, I am satisfied, was for the purpose of the manufacture to take place four days later. Your two earlier offences, though more distant in time, demonstrate that you had access to, and were dealing in, precursor substances or materials for manufacture as well as methamphetamine itself.

Sentencing purposes and principles

[8] In sentencing you I must hold you accountable for the harm you have…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Goldsbury and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 2577
Decision Date: 15 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Karl Goldsbury was sentenced for five offences following a trial in which he was acquitted of four other charges. The offences related to the supply of precursor chemicals for methamphetamine production and the supply of methamphetamine itself, as well as conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The court had to decide the extent of Goldsbury’s involvement in the conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, the scale of the manufacturing operation, and appropriate sentencing considerations. The court found that Goldsbury was intent on manufacturing methamphetamine on a significant commercial scale and had obtained precursor chemicals and equipment in preparation for this. The court determined that Goldsbury was likely to have been capable of manufacturing at least 250 grams of methamphetamine, placing him in band two of the sentencing guidelines for manufacturing offences. The court considered various sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and the need for rehabilitation, ultimately concluding that Goldsbury posed a high risk of reoffending unless he addressed his drug use and associations. The court imposed an eight-year starting sentence for the conspiracy, adjusted for totality, previous convictions, and time spent on electronically monitored bail. Cumulative sentences were imposed for the other offences, resulting in an effective sentence of 10.5 years, with an additional minimum period of imprisonment of five years to adequately address the seriousness of the offending and the risk of reoffending.

Orders