R v Hannon

Case [2016] NZHC 2600


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-092-2827 [2016] NZHC 2600

THE QUEEN

v

SHANE PATRICK HANNON

Hearing: 1 November 2016

Appearances:

KE Hogan for Crown
AMM Ives for Defendant

Sentence:

1 November 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v Hannon [2016] NZHC 2600 [1 November 2016]

[1]      Shane Patrick Hannon:  you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of manufacturing methamphetamine;1 one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply;2  three charges of unlawful possession of a firearm;3 and two charges of unlawful possession of ammunition.4

[2]      Your   pleas   were   entered   after   I   gave   a   sentence   indication,   on

13 September 2016, under s 61(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.  In reaching my views as to the appropriate sentences to be imposed today, I have taken into account the helpful submissions I received from counsel at the time of the sentence indication hearing and I rely on the reasons I gave in my written decision.5    I have added some further comment on matters which have been drawn to my attention since the sentence indication.  I do not need to do more, however, than summarise what I said earlier.

Factual Background

[3]      The  relevant  facts  are  that  the  Police  executed  a  search  warrant  on  an apartment room to which you were connected after surveillance.  You were found with two associates, and you had with you a loaded 9 mm pistol and a plastic snap lock  container  with  recently  manufactured  methamphetamine  which  weighed

616.5 grams and had a purity of 66 per cent.  $176,800.00 in cash was located in the room.

[4]      A search warrant was also executed at a factory unit at Wiri.  The entry points to the unit were found to be fortified, and there were security cameras around the site.  The unit contained a “hidden room” with a drug laboratory within it.  5.6 grams of methamphetamine were found there, as well as a loaded revolver, homemade pistol and ammunition.

[5]      That afternoon, the Police also executed a search warrant on a residential address of one of your close associates. The Police located ammunition, three AK 47

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(b): maximum penalty life imprisonment.

2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f): maximum penalty life imprisonment.

3      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b): maximum penalty four years' imprisonment and/or $5000 fine.

4      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b): maximum penalty four years' imprisonment and/or $5000 fine.

5      R v Hannon [2016] NZHC 2161.

semi-automatic rifles, six AR15/M4 semi-automatic rifles, an M4 style semi- automatic rifle, a cut down Ruger 10/22 rifle, a Tactical shotgun and two Bolt action rifles.

[6]      A search warrant of a deposit box in the name of your girlfriend revealed

$300,650.00 in cash.

Setting a starting point

[7]      The leading charge of manufacturing methamphetamine, falls into band 4 of the guideline bands because the amount manufactured was above 500 grams.6   I am required  to  analyse  your  role  in  the  manufacturing  as  well  as  considering  the amounts of…

Continue reading R v Hannon

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hannon [2016] NZHC 2600
Case
[2016] NZHC 2600
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shane Patrick Hannon was sentenced for manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for supply, and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. The court considered the seriousness of the drug manufacturing operation, the commercial nature of the operation, and the possession of loaded firearms. The court determined a starting point of 13 years' imprisonment for the manufacturing charge, uplifted by three years for the firearms charges, resulting in a total starting point of 16 years' imprisonment. The court then applied discounts for the defendant's assistance to the police and guilty pleas, resulting in an end sentence of 12 years and 4 months' imprisonment on the lead charge, with all sentences to be served concurrently.

The court considered the defendant's history of drug offending, his age, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court noted that the defendant had suffered a serious head injury in the past, which led to his turn to drugs and dealing. The court also considered the defendant's expression of remorse and his intention to turn away from past associations and behaviour. The court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of 50% to meet the purposes of accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and community protection.

The court sentenced the defendant to 12 years and 4 months' imprisonment on the lead charge of manufacturing methamphetamine, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 6 years and 2 months. The court also sentenced the defendant to concurrent terms of imprisonment for the other charges. The total effective sentence was 12 years and 4 months' imprisonment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.