R v Hall - [2013] NZHC 2271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-006361 [2013] NZHC 2271

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL GERARD HALL

Hearing: 3 September 2013

Appearances:

G R Kayes for Crown
J C LaHatte for Prisoner

Sentence:

3 September 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v MICHAEL GERARD HALL [2013] NZHC 2271 [3 September 2013]

[1] Mr Hall, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to being in possession of a Class C controlled drug for the purpose of sale. The maximum penalty for that offence is eight years imprisonment.

Background

[2] Your offending came to light as a result of a large scale police operation designed to target analogue drugs being manufactured and distributed within the wider Auckland region. The modus operandi of those at the head of the operation involved the importing of Class B and C controlled durgs, and then manufacturing them into analogue Ecstasy pills.

[3] As the Crown acknowledges, your role in the operation was extremely limited. You were recruited by a person considerably further up the chain to act as a courier whose role was to collect packages and provide them to other people. It was also anticipated that you would collect payment for those packages, and pass it back to the person on whose behalf you were acting. In practical terms, however, you only performed this role on a single occasion. On that occasion, you transported one package that contained alfa PVP. This is an analogue of the Class B controlled drug pyrovalerone. The package contained approximately one kilogram of that substance. This could have been used to make approximately 5,000 ecstasy type pills.

[4] The initial arrangement between you and the person instructing you was that you were to receive $5,000 per package that you transported. Ultimately, however, you only received the sum of $2,000 in respect of the single package with which you had an involvement. The Crown therefore accepts that you played a very minor role in what was a much larger operation.

Sentencing Act 2002

[5] In any offending involving the possession or distribution of Class C controlled drugs for commercial gain, issues of deterrence and denunciation are to the forefront. The courts routinely select starting points of imprisonment to reflect the serious issues that Class A, B and C controlled drugs present for our society.

That is the only way in which the courts can hope to make any impact on the war against drugs.

Starting point

[6] The first issue, as always, is to select the starting point to be imposed to reflect the overall culpability of your offending. The starting point is the sentence that relates to the offence alone, and without taking into account factors that are personal to you.

[7] In your case, the aggravating factors of the offending are that a significant quantity of the drug was involved. Secondly, you agreed to become involved in the operation purely for commercial purposes. You say that you were not aware of what was in the package,…

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 Hall

Details

AGLC: R v Hall [2013] NZHC 2271
Case: [2013] NZHC 2271
Decision Date: 3 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hall involves the sentencing of Michael Gerard Hall, who pleaded guilty to possession of a Class C controlled drug for the purpose of sale. The maximum penalty for this offence is eight years imprisonment. The offence came to light as part of a large-scale police operation targeting the manufacture and distribution of analogue drugs in the Auckland region. Hall's role in the operation was limited to acting as a courier for a single occasion, transporting a package containing alfa PVP, an analogue of the Class B controlled drug pyrovalerone.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence and the extent to which mitigating factors should reduce the sentence. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the quantity of drugs involved, and Hall's limited role in the operation. The court also assessed personal aggravating and mitigating factors, such as Hall's lack of prior drug-related convictions and his motivation due to financial difficulties. The court selected a starting point of two years imprisonment, reduced by three months for mitigating factors and a further five months for Hall's guilty plea, resulting in a sentence of 16 months imprisonment. Given the sentence was less than two years, the court considered the alternative sentence of home detention, which was deemed appropriate given Hall's suitability and lack of drug-related history.

The court sentenced Hall to eight months of home detention, subject to conditions including residence at a nominated address, abstention from drugs and alcohol, and compliance with counselling and employment restrictions. The decision reflects the court's consideration of the seriousness of the offence, Hall's limited role, and the mitigating factors presented.

Orders