R v Griffiths - [2018] NZHC 3132

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-092-11344

[2018] NZHC 3132

THE QUEEN

v

DAVID ROBERT GRIFFITHS

Hearing: 30 November 2018

Appearances:

K S Li for Crown

J S Kovacevich for Defendant

Judgment:

30 November 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v GRIFFITHS [2018] NZHC 3132 [30 November 2018]

[1] Mr Griffiths, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to 19 charges of manufacturing methamphetamine and one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine. You entered your guilty pleas after a sentence indication given on 23 October 2018.1 The sentence indication will be annexed to my sentencing remarks and will form part of them. For that reason I do not propose to recite the facts that gave rise to the charges to which you have pleaded guilty.

[2] In short, you manufactured substantial quantities of methamphetamine at numerous addresses in the Auckland region. The police were only able to ascertain the quantity of methamphetamine manufactured on one occasion when they arrived at an address in Awhitu and discovered you in the process of manufacturing methamphetamine. On that occasion the Crown estimates that you had either manufactured, or had the ability to manufacture, 1.4773 kilograms of methamphetamine. The sophistication of the operation and the equipment and materials the police discovered make it clear that earlier manufactures probably produced similar quantities of methamphetamine.

[3] I adopted a starting point of 18 and a half years imprisonment in accordance with the submission made by the Crown. In doing so, I indicated that this was at the very bottom of the available range and should not be taken as a precedent in future cases. I then applied an uplift of 18 months to reflect the fact that you have previous convictions for similar offending and you were still on parole in relation to those charges when the present offending occurred. I applied a discount of 25 per cent to reflect the fact that your guilty pleas come at a relatively early stage. This produced an end sentence of 15 years imprisonment. Given the scale of your offending, I considered that a minimum term of imprisonment of 50 per cent was appropriate. You have entered your guilty pleas on the basis of those indications.

[4] The only remaining issues I need to determine relate to matters that have arisen since the sentence indication was given. The principal of these is the fact that in September 2017 you were recalled to prison on the previous charges as a result of your arrest on the present charges. You were then required to spend six months in prison

1 R v Griffiths, Verdonk & Moran [2018] NZHC 2733.

completing the earlier sentence. You will not receive credit for time spent on remand on the present charges during that period.

[5] This is an issue that I need to take into account when fixing the level of uplift. If I do not, there will be a risk that…

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 Griffiths

Details

AGLC: R v Griffiths [2018] NZHC 3132
Case: [2018] NZHC 3132
Decision Date: 30 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Griffiths involved David Robert Griffiths, who was sentenced for manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Griffiths, who pleaded guilty to 19 charges of manufacturing methamphetamine and one charge of supplying the same. The case was presided over by Lang J. The primary legal issues involved deciding the starting point for the sentence, applying any necessary uplifts or discounts based on aggravating or mitigating factors, and determining the minimum term of imprisonment.

Lang J started with a base sentence of 18 and a half years, acknowledging this was at the lower end of the scale and should not be seen as a precedent. The court applied an uplift of 18 months due to Griffiths' previous convictions and the fact he was on parole at the time of the current offending. A discount of 25% was applied for early guilty pleas, resulting in a sentence of 15 years imprisonment. Given the seriousness of the offence, Lang J deemed a minimum term of 50% appropriate, meaning Griffiths would serve seven and a half years before being eligible for parole. The court also considered the time Griffiths spent on remand and reduced the uplift by four months to avoid double punishment for the same offence. The final sentence was set at 14 years and eight months imprisonment, to be served concurrently, with a minimum term of seven years and four months before parole eligibility. Additionally, the court ordered the forfeiture of $3,856.40 found in Griffiths' possession.

Orders