R v Gordon - [2012] NZHC 1117

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-009-008240
CRI-2012-009-002319

CRI-2011-009-003011 [2012] NZHC 1117

THE QUEEN

v

ROBERT WILLIAM GORDON JEREMY RAYMOND WHALL MICHELLE JOY TAGESTAD

Appearances: N M Robson for Crown
A S Greig for Robert Gordon
P J Butler for Jeremy Whall
G P Tyrell for Michelle Tagestad

Judgment: 16 May 2012

REMARKS ON SENTENCE OF CHISHOLM J

[1] Robert Gordon, Jeremy Whall and Michelle Tagestad, you have pleaded guilty to the charges that I will mention in a moment. The District Court declined jurisdiction and referred the matter to this Court for sentencing. That is because of limits on what a District Court Judge can do in a situation like this.

[2] As far as you are concerned, Mr Gordon, you face two charges: possession of a precursor substance and possession of methamphetamine. Mr Whall, you are charged with possession of material with intent. Ms Tagestad you have three charges: two of possessing material with intent, one of possessing a precursor
substance and one of possessing Benzylpiperazine.

R V GORDON HC CHCH CRI-2011-009-008240 [16 May 2012]

[3] The offending was revealed as a result of a police operation which commenced in October 2010. Between January and July, you, Mr Whall, purchased iodine on six occasions and on one of those occasions Ms Tagestad was also present.

[4] In July Ms Tagestad booked into a Christchurch hotel. She was joined there by Mr Gordon. After you, Mr Gordon, left the hotel the vehicle you were driving was stopped by the police and they found 5 grams of methamphetamine, scales and medication in the form of 24 capsules containing pseudoephedrine. There was also search of the hotel unit pursuant to a search warrant. Mr Whall and Ms Tagestad you were present in the bathroom. Chemicals, material and equipment capable of manufacturing methamphetamine were found in the bathroom and in the lounge.

[5] It is common ground (in other words there is no dispute) that with the exception of an unrelated matter which I will mention in a moment concerning Ms Tagestad, you were all operating together to supply your own needs. There was no commerciality.

[6] The other matter, in respect of which you face sentence Ms Tagestad, occurred on 2 March 2011. A vehicle in which you were a passenger was stopped and you were found to have in your possession a packet of Benzylpiperazine

[7] At this stage I am going to talk about you each individually. I am going to start with you Mr Gordon.

Robert William Gordon

[8] As I have already mentioned, you face two charges. You are 31 years of age. You have three previous drug related convictions in 2000 concerning the supply of LSD, cocaine, and a Class B drug. You were sentenced on that occasion to imprisonment for one year and one month. The sentence was suspended.

[9] As in the case of each of you, there is a very full and helpful probation officer’s report. You live in Gore;…

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 Gordon

Details

AGLC: R v Gordon [2012] NZHC 1117
Case: [2012] NZHC 1117
Decision Date: 16 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert William Gordon, Jeremy Raymond Whall, and Michelle Joy Tagestad were convicted of drug-related offenses and sentenced by Chisholm J in the High Court of New Zealand. Gordon was charged with possession of a precursor substance and methamphetamine, Whall with possession of material with intent, and Tagestad with possession of material with intent, a precursor substance, and Benzylpiperazine. The court considered the offenders' previous convictions, their efforts to rehabilitate, and the nature of the offenses. The legal issues included determining the appropriate sentence for each offender, taking into account their previous convictions, efforts to rehabilitate, and the nature of the offenses.

The court considered the offenders' previous convictions, their efforts to rehabilitate, and the nature of the offenses. For Gordon, the court took into account his previous drug-related convictions, his efforts to rehabilitate, and the support he received from his family. The court decided on a sentence of home detention for seven months for the possession of methamphetamine and a concurrent sentence of seven months for possessing a precursor substance. For Whall, the court decided on a sentence of 12 months intensive supervision, considering his previous convictions and his efforts to rehabilitate. For Tagestad, the court decided on a sentence of eight months home detention for possession of a precursor substance and concurrent sentences of eight months for the other possession charges, and she was convicted and discharged on the charge of possession of Benzylpiperazine.

The final orders were that Gordon and Tagestad be sentenced to home detention, with specific conditions including residence at a designated address, abstaining from alcohol and illicit drugs, and attending recommended counseling or treatment. Whall was sentenced to 12 months intensive supervision, required to undertake and complete the Corrections MIRP programme. An order for the destruction of the Benzylpiperazine was also made.

Orders