R v Guthrie - [2013] NZHC 1783

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-092-5862 [2013] NZHC 1783

THE QUEEN

v

GINA GUTHRIE

Hearing: 16 July 2013

Appearances: W N Fotherby for Crown
M N Pecotic for Prisoner

Sentenced: 16 July 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Counsel: M N Pecotic, Auckland

R v GUTHRIE [2013] NZHC 1783 [16 July 2013]

Introduction

[1] Ms Guthrie, you are for sentence on 5 charges to which you pleaded guilty in

April 2013.

[2] Counts 1 and 2 are representative and are that between 1 June and 6 October

2011 you supplied a Class A controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, and that you supplied pseudoephedrine, which is a pre-cursor substance for the manufacture of methamphetamine. The charge of supply of methamphetamine carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment[1] and the charge of supply of a pre-cursor
substance[2] carries a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.

[1] Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c).

[2] Ibid, s 12A(1)(b).

[3] Counts 3, 4 and 5 arise from searches the Police carried out on 6 October

2011.

[4] Count 3 is possession of methamphetamine for supply.[3] The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

[3] Ibid, s 6(1)(f).

[5] Count 4 is possession of a pre-cursor substance, pseudoephedrine.[4] The

maximum penalty for that count is 5 years’ imprisonment.

[4] Ibid, s 12A(2)(b).

[6] Count 5 is unlawful possession of a firearm.[5] The maximum penalty for this

charge is 4 years’ imprisonment.

[5] Arms Act 1973, s 54.

[7] In summary, looking at those penalties, you are before the Court on serious charges.

Facts

[8] On 6 October 2011, the Police stopped and searched a taxi that you were in. They found a total of 111.9, so we will call it 112, grams of methamphetamine in
your possession and $5,145 in cash.

[9] The Police also executed search warrants at your address and at two storage facilities that you had rented. There they found more than $47,000 in cash. So, in total you had about $52,000 in cash either on you or at premises of which you were the occupier.

[10] The Police also found two amounts of ContacNT, that being a medication that contains pseudoephedrine. One amount was 220.9 grams and the other was
226 grams, giving a total of 447 grams effectively. The Police estimate such a quantity of pseudoephedrine would have a street value of about $20,000 and that it would yield approximately 90 grams of methamphetamine. The Police also found a sawn-off shotgun in one of the storage facilities.

[11] Those searches have given rise to counts 3, 4 and 5, of which count 3, possession for supply of methamphetamine, is the most serious.

[12] Counts 1 and 2, the representative counts of supply of methamphetamine and supply of pre-cursors, arise from evidence of text messages sent to and from a mobile phone you were using between June and October 2011. The Police are not able to determine how much methamphetamine and pseudoephedrine you supplied…

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 Guthrie

Details

AGLC: R v Guthrie [2013] NZHC 1783
Case: [2013] NZHC 1783
Decision Date: 16 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Guthrie, the defendant, Ms. Guthrie, was sentenced for five charges to which she pleaded guilty. These charges included the supply of a Class A controlled drug, methamphetamine, and the supply of a precursor substance, pseudoephedrine. The court also considered the possession of methamphetamine for supply, possession of a precursor substance, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The court was required to decide on an appropriate sentence that would deter both the defendant and others from engaging in such activities while considering the totality of her offending and personal circumstances.

The court began by determining the starting point for the sentence, focusing on the most serious charge, possession of methamphetamine for supply. The court found the appropriate starting point to be between 5 ½ to 6 years' imprisonment. The court then considered other charges and agreed with the Crown's suggestion of an uplift of 2 years, resulting in a starting point of 7 ½ years' imprisonment. The court adjusted this starting point by increasing it by 6 months due to the defendant's prior related drug offending and reducing it by 25 to 30 percent for personal and other matters, such as her guilty plea. The final sentence imposed was 4 years and 10 months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently.

The final orders included the forfeiture of all cash found during the police search, except for $17,000 net, which the court deemed not to result from the defendant's offending. The court also ordered the destruction of the firearm and any drugs or related paraphernalia seized during the search.

Orders