R v Gray - [2013] NZHC 450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2010-019-2006 [2013] NZHC 450

THE QUEEN

v

STEPHEN JOHN GRAY

(Heard at Auckland)

Appearances: J N Foster for the Crown
P Morgan QC for the Prisoner

Sentence: 8 March 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF PRIESTLEY J

Counsel:
J Foster, Crown Solicitor, Hamilton. jnf@almaodouch.co.nz
P Morgan QC, Barrister, Hamilton. pjmorgan@clear.net.nz

R V GRAY HC HAM CRI-2010-019-2006 [8 March 2013]

Preliminary Comment

[1] Stephen John Gray, as you know you have wrecked your life. You came from a modest but respectable family. You have worked hard in your various occupations, have made good incomes and have been able to accumulate assets. One of your drivers has clearly been to improve your financial situation and that of your family. You have been a good provider, a good father, and a concerned and protective son to your late mother. You have no previous convictions.

[2] You now stand to lose a substantial portion of your assets (over $5 million). A lengthy term of imprisonment, as you know, will be imposed on you. You have brought shame and disgrace on yourself and, to a degree, on your family. You have encouraged and involved your son Michael, whom I sentenced last month, in your various illegal activities. You have lost all that because of deliberate criminal offending and greed.

[3] As is clear from the intercepted conversations I have heard you knew precisely what you were doing. You were good at it. You enjoyed it. You were well aware of the destructive force of the drugs you were selling and the misery it could bring to other lives. You benefitted from a constant flow of untaxed drug money. You well knew the risks. This was not impulse offending, or one-off offending, it was deliberate and sustained.

[4] Your counsel, who has served you exceptionally well at all stages, has referred on a number of occasions to your “dark side”. At your trial he twice acknowledged to the jury that they would regard you with loathing and contempt. I do not regard you with loathing and contempt Mr Gray, nor shall I sentence you on that basis. But your brazenness and your calculated offending is disturbing. You were a drug supplier on a major scale and deserving of severe punishment.

The offending

[5] You and a large number of co-offenders were detected and caught as a result of an extensive police operation in the Waikato known as Operation Cape. The

period of indictments spanned five months. There was surveillance of telephone and text messages and subsequently the placing of listening devices in your home at 53E Exelby Road, a rural property which was the centre of your drug dealing and home.

[6] Realistically, given the strength of the evidence against you, you pleaded guilty before or during the trial to six counts. You were found guilty by the jury on the balance of six counts. So I am sentencing you today on four counts which carry a maximum penalty…

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 Gray

Details

AGLC: R v Gray [2013] NZHC 450
Case: [2013] NZHC 450
Decision Date: 8 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gray involved the sentencing of Stephen John Gray, who was convicted of multiple drug-related offenses, including manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine, lysergide (LSD), and cannabis, as well as possessing MDMA and precursor substances. The case was heard at the High Court of New Zealand in Hamilton. Gray was sentenced to a total of 12 years imprisonment on three methamphetamine charges, five years on the LSD charge, four years on each of the two cannabis cultivation charges, 4½ years for supplying cannabis, six months for conspiring to cultivate cannabis, four years for possessing cannabis for supply, two years for supplying MDMA, and four years for possessing precursor substances and materials. The sentences were to be served concurrently, with a minimum term of 5½ years imprisonment on the methamphetamine charges.

The court considered Gray's culpability, which was high due to the sustained and commercial nature of his offending. The court also took into account Gray's unblemished record, age, guilty pleas, and remorse. The court further considered the large instrument forfeiture order of $2.7 million, which entitled Gray to a discount on his sentence. After weighing all these factors, the court imposed a sentence of 12 years imprisonment on the methamphetamine charges, with a minimum term of 5½ years, and concurrent sentences on the other charges, bringing the total sentence to 12 years.

In conclusion, the court imposed a sentence of 12 years imprisonment on Gray, with a minimum term of 5½ years on the methamphetamine charges. The court also ordered the forfeiture of Gray's assets worth $2.7 million and a profit forfeiture order of $2.4 million. Gray's sentences were to be served concurrently, and he was given credit for his unblemished record, age, guilty pleas, and remorse. The court emphasized the importance of accountability, denunciation, and deterrence in imposing the sentence, and noted that Gray's substantial asset forfeiture order entitled him to a discount on his sentence.

Orders