R v Haine - [2013] NZHC 66

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2010-019-2006 [2013] NZHC 66

THE QUEEN

v

KENTON IAN HAINE KYLE LANCE MURPHY BRENDON MURRAY CARLISLE MICHAEL STEPHEN GRAY

Appearances: J Foster for the Crown
B Hesketh for Haine
K Tustin for Murphy
R Laybourn for Carlisle
T Sutcliffe for M J Gray

Sentence: 5 February 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF PRIESTLEY J

Counsel:
J Foster, Crown Solicitor, Hamilton. jnf@almaodouch.co.nz
B Hesketh for Haine. bruce@heskethlaw.co.nz
K Tustin for Murphy. k.tustin@xtra.co.nz
R Laybourn for Carlisle. laybournlaw@xtra.co.nz
T Sutcliffe for M J Gray. Thomas@sutcliffe.co.nz

R V HAINE, MURPHY, CARLISLE, GRAY HC HAM CRI-2010-019-2006 [5 February 2013]

Preliminary comment

[1] Reading the materials supplied by counsel for Messrs Haine, Murphy and Michael Gray, underlines in a dramatic way the pernicious effect of drug addiction and abuse. All three of you, and I am referring there to Messrs Haine, Murphy and Michael Gray, have many fine qualities. All three of you have been users of drugs, in varying degrees, for many years. You held down good jobs. You were spoken of highly as workers and, for you, Mr Haine and Mr Murphy, as members of the community. You have broken the hearts of your parents and/or partners and you, Mr Murphy, can see in a dramatic way the effect your imprisonment has had on your children. The only positive thing which can be said is that over the past three years or so you have had time to reflect on your drug abuse and take steps to clean yourselves up. Because any sentence I impose must assist your rehabilitation I shall give you some small credit for that. But the real challenge for you three will be to keep on a drug-free path once you are released from prison. It may not be easy but if you revert to where you were in 2009 your future lives will be bleak.

[2] I cannot say quite the same for you Mr Carlisle. You have been in the grips of methamphetamine for well over 10 years, or 13 as you say in the letter you put up to me today, and had the audacity to continue dealing with that drug both when you were on bail before your trial and during the trial itself. I can only assume that your addiction made you reckless. The letter which you provided me with this morning, however, and also your mother’s helpful comments, suggests that perhaps you too have taken stock of the situation and are trying to point yourself in the right direction. Whether you are successful will be solely for you to sort out yourself.

Background

[3] All of you were, in one way or another, caught up in an extensive police operation carried out in Waikato in 2009, Operation Cape, which centred on the drug dealing activities of Stephen John Gray and his associates. For almost five months until mid-October 2009 your telephone conversations were intercepted. For a nine week period, from mid-August to mid-October, audio devices were…

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 Haine

Details

AGLC: R v Haine [2013] NZHC 66
Case: [2013] NZHC 66
Decision Date: 5 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Haine involves four defendants, Kenton Ian Haine, Kyle Lance Murphy, Brendon Murray Carlisle, and Michael Stephen Gray, who were charged with drug-related offenses. The defendants were part of an extensive police operation targeting drug dealing activities in Waikato in 2009, known as Operation Cape. The case was presided over by Priestley J, who considered the defendants' personal circumstances, the nature of their offenses, and the principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2002. The court imposed sentences ranging from four years and nine months to five years and ten months imprisonment, with recommendations for drug rehabilitation courses. The court emphasized the importance of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation in sentencing, particularly in cases involving chronic drug addiction.

Orders