R v Green - [2013] NZHC 1577

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2011-043-2338 [2013] NZHC 1577

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL GEORGE GREEN

Hearing: 27 June 2013

Counsel: J Mooney for Crown
SW Hughes QC for Prisoner

Sentence: 27 June 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] Mr Green, you appear for sentence on the following charges: (a) conspiracy to supply methamphetamine;1
(b) participation in an organised criminal group;2

(c) conspiracy to supply class C ecstasy;3 and

(d) conspiracy to supply cannabis.4

[2] On 22 May I gave you a pre-trial sentencing indication pursuant to s 61(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. On 30 May you accepted that indication and you
pleaded guilty before Miller J.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and s 6(2A)(a).
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and s 6(2A)(c).
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and s 6(2A)(c).

R v GREEN [2013] NZHC 1577 [27 June 2013]

[3] You are 40 years old, Mr Green. You are employed as a factory worker for Fonterra. You are associated with members of the Rebels motorcycle gang. You are not yourself a member or patched. But you were in contact with patched members Nathan Couper and Dallas Hikaka frequently when you needed drugs yourself and for resale purposes.

[4] You have two previous convictions of little consequence. One is for dangerous driving in 1989 and the other is for careless driving in 1994. Both were punished by a fine or disqualification only.

[5] I turn now to the particular charges you face.

Conspiracy to supply methamphetamine

[6] First, conspiracy to supply methamphetamine. On at least seven occasions you asked for methamphetamine to supply to others. You also had another dealer working underneath you whom you referred to as your “girl”. She was recorded as having sold at least one unit.

Participation in an organised criminal group

[7] Secondly, participation in an organised criminal group. You were closely associated with the members of the Rebels and involved in retail dealing in the drugs they offered. You responded to a request by Mr Couper that members of the conspiracy call in their debts in order to provide urgent funds for the Rebels. This demonstrates that your dealing was conducted as part of a group for the benefit of the Rebels.

[8] Thirdly, conspiracy to supply class C varieties of Ecstasy. You texted Mr Couper on at least three times to request a supply of ecstasy for resale. You also attempted to find a buyer when Mr Couper advised you he had stock he wished to dispose of. The largest order was for six pills.

Conspiracy to sell cannabis

[9] Finally, conspiracy to sell cannabis. You supplied at least three ounces to Messrs Couper and James. You also agreed to resell a $50 bag that Mr Couper supplied on another occasion. On a further occasion, you ran a sort of honesty box arrangement giving Mr Couper the code…

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 Green

Details

AGLC: R v Green [2013] NZHC 1577
Case: [2013] NZHC 1577
Decision Date: 27 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Green involved Michael George Green, who was sentenced by Justice Kós in the High Court of New Zealand. Green was found guilty of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, participating in an organised criminal group, conspiracy to supply class C ecstasy, and conspiracy to supply cannabis. The primary legal issue was to determine the appropriate sentence for Green, taking into account his level of involvement in the conspiracies and his personal circumstances. The court considered the nature and extent of Green's involvement in the drug supply activities, as well as his background and personal circumstances, in determining the sentence.

The court began by considering the conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, which was the lead offence. Green had played a role in the supply chain, acting as a middleman and placing orders for methamphetamine to be supplied to others. The court assessed Green's involvement as more peripheral than that of the central figures in the conspiracy, and therefore reduced the starting point for sentencing accordingly. The court also considered the other charges and found that an uplift of nine months was appropriate to reflect Green's active involvement in the drug supply activities. Green's personal circumstances, such as his lack of a prior criminal record, his guilty plea, and his demonstrated remorse and potential for rehabilitation, were also taken into account in determining the final sentence. The court ultimately sentenced Green to a total of three years and three months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently.

In conclusion, the court imposed a sentence of three years and three months' imprisonment on Green, reflecting the seriousness of his involvement in the drug supply conspiracies, while also taking into account his personal circumstances and the principles of totality and proportionality in sentencing. The sentence imposed demonstrates the court's approach to balancing the need for deterrence and punishment with the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into society.

Orders