R v Harding

[2017] NZHC 1181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2014-088-003309 [2017] NZHC 1181

THE QUEEN

v

BROWNIE JOSEPH HARDING

Hearing:	5 and 6 April 2017
Appearances:	Michael Smith and Richard Annandale for the Crown Mark Edgar for the Defendant
Judgment:	1 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J [Reasons on disputed facts]

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 June 2017 at 10:30 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Date:

R v HARDING [2017] NZHC 1181 [1 June 2017]

Contents

Paragraph

Number

Introduction ..............................................................................................................[1] Factual overview and background .........................................................................[8] Procedural history..................................................................................................[15] Disputed facts hearing – s 24 of the Sentencing Act 2002...................................[32] Crown case ..............................................................................................................[37] Mr Harding’s case ..................................................................................................[59] First phase............................................................................................................[60] Second phase ........................................................................................................[62] Third phase...........................................................................................................[63] Fourth phase ........................................................................................................[64] Fifth phase............................................................................................................[65] Sixth phase ...........................................................................................................[66] Analysis ...................................................................................................................[67] Role ......................................................................................................................[68] Quantity................................................................................................................[83]

(a)     First phase .................................................................................................[84] (b)     Second phase..............................................................................................[89] (c)     Third phase ................................................................................................[94] (d)     Fourth phase ..............................................................................................[99] (e)     Fifth phase ...............................................................................................[105] (f)      Sixth phase ............................................................................................... [111]

Conclusion............................................................................................................. [116]

Introduction

[1]      The defendant, Brownie Joseph Harding, pleaded guilty to 11 charges which arise out of his involvement in a large scale and highly sophisticated methamphetamine manufacturing operation.

[2]     Six of the charges allege that on specified occasions he manufactured methamphetamine.

[3]      The Crown claims that Mr Harding sat at the apex of the manufacturing

operation and that he “spearheaded” it.  Mr Harding disagrees.

[4]      The Crown also claims that quantities of methamphetamine in excess of nine kilograms were manufactured over the course of the three month surveillance and monitoring operation.  Mr Harding says that the quantities produced were much more modest and of the order of 2.9 kilograms.

[5]      These differences  are not only stark  and irreconcilable but they are also

central to an assessment of Mr Harding’s criminality.

[6]      As a consequence, I advised the parties that I regarded the Crown’s claims as to the role Mr Harding played and the quantities of methamphetamine manufactured as significant aggravating factors which, if proved beyond a reasonable doubt, would necessarily have a material effect on my assessment of Mr Harding’s criminality and thus his sentence.

[7]      A disputed facts hearing under s 24 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (“the Act”) took place before me on 5 and 6 April 2017.  On 6 April 2017, with the agreement of counsel, I issued a results only decision in which I advised counsel I had determined that at least 6.5 kilograms of methamphetamine had been manufactured over the course of the operation.  I also advised that the Crown had satisfied me Mr Harding sat at the apex of the hierarchy and that he “spearheaded” the manufacturing and distribution operation.   A copy of my results decision is attached.   I advised my reasons would follow in writing.

Factual overview and background

[8]      In July 2014 the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand (“OFCANZ”)  commenced  an  investigation  into  the  activities  of  an  organised criminal group made up of…