R v Gunbie - [2014] NZHC 2804

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-225 [2014] NZHC 2804

THE QUEEN

v

STEVEN BRENT GUNBIE

Hearing: 30 October 2014

Appearances:

E J McCaughan for the Crown
J S Kovacevich for the Defendant

Sentencingdate:

30 October 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF THOMAS J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland.

Counsel:
J S Kovacevich, Auckland.

R v GUNBIE [2014] NZHC 2804 [30 October 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Gunbie, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one representative charge of knowingly permitting premises to be used for the purpose of producing the Class B controlled drug pseudoephedrine. The maximum penalty for this offence is seven years’ imprisonment.

Facts

[2] The facts are that between 6 January 2012 and 23 February 2012 you lived on Sharp Road in Warkworth. On two occasions over that period, you allowed associates to produce an unidentified amount of pseudoephedrine, knowing that they ultimately intended to manufacture methamphetamine. It is unknown whether any methamphetamine was manufactured at your address over that period or whether the associates completed the manufacture at another location.

[3] The summary of facts also states that on 21 February 2012 you agreed to travel to an industrial unit in Glenfield, in order to see if you could help your associates sort out a problem they were having in the process of manufacturing methamphetamine. It is unclear whether you were able to assist them.

Personal circumstances

[4] You have a lengthy criminal record, with 28 convictions in the last ten years alone. Most relevant to the current offending is your conviction for possession of cannabis in February 2013, for which you served a concurrent sentence of one month’s imprisonment. The only other drug related convictions go back to 1997 where you received convictions for possession of methamphetamine and morphine. The Crown, however, does not seek an uplift for your previous offending.

[5] You are 36 years old. You have seven children for whom you say you are responsible. Three of them are your biological children. You have a two and a half year old child with your current de factor partner, with whom you have been in a relationship since 2011. You say you are in regular contact with all your children.

[6] You told the probation officer that you have a good relationship with your two ex-partners and provide them with financial assistance when they need it. Police checks suggest that one of your ex-partners has a final protection order in place against you. I have seen correspondence from your mother which provides some context in relation to that.

[7] The probation officer spoke to your mother, who explained that the two of you reconnected after your release in 2011. At that time she felt that you had changed your outlook on life. She believes you have had enough of prison and enjoy working on the farm. She says she “calls you out” on your behaviour. The probation officer considers her to be pro-social and very supportive of you. Your mother offered her…

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 Gunbie

Details

AGLC: R v Gunbie [2014] NZHC 2804
Case: [2014] NZHC 2804
Decision Date: 30 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Steven Brent Gunbie was sentenced by Thomas J in the High Court of New Zealand for knowingly permitting premises to be used for the purpose of producing the Class B controlled drug pseudoephedrine. The maximum penalty for this offence is seven years' imprisonment. The court had to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing, consider whether any aggravating or mitigating factors were present, and decide on the appropriate sentence.

The court considered the starting point for this type of offence, taking into account that the maximum penalty was seven years' imprisonment rather than the ten years' imprisonment for producing methamphetamine. The court also took into account the fact that the offending occurred in a residential area, the defendant knew what his associates were doing, and the inherent danger in producing pseudoephedrine. The court imposed an uplift of three months imprisonment due to the fact that the defendant committed this offence while on bail. The court gave a 20 per cent discount for the guilty plea.

The court sentenced Mr Gunbie to 22 months' imprisonment, with standard and special conditions imposed on the sentence. The special conditions required the defendant to attend and complete any course or counselling directed to the causes of offending as required by his probation officer, taking into account whether he was, in fact, attending counselling with the psychologist, Mr Wilcox.

Orders