R v Harding - [2017] NZHC 675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2014-088-003309 [2017] NZHC 675

THE QUEEN

v

BROWNIE JOSEPH HARDING

Hearing: 7 April 2017

Appearances:

Michael Smith and Richard Annandale for the Crown
Mark Edgar for the Defendant

Judgment:

7 April 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v HARDING [2017] NZHC 675 [7 April 2017]

Introduction

[1] Brownie Joseph Harding, at the age of 40 you appear today for sentence having pleaded guilty on 2 June 2016 to 11 charges brought under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Crimes Act 1961. You later applied to vacate some of those pleas. I dismissed that application earlier this week. I shall return to that application and the other application I heard on Wednesday, later in these remarks.

[2] The 11 charges relate, directly and indirectly, to the massive methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution network which you masterminded and directed in the latter part of 2014.

[3] The details of the charges are set out in a table which will appear in my sentencing notes.

Charge Particulars Dates of Offences Maximum penalty

1 Manufacture methamphetamine
23 to 26 September

2014
Life imprisonment

2 Manufacture methamphetamine
30 September to 1

October 2014
Life imprisonment

3 Manufacture methamphetamine 8 to 9 October 2014 Life imprisonment

4 Manufacture methamphetamine
20 to 23 October

2014
Life imprisonment

5 Manufacture methamphetamine
28 to 31 October

2014
Life imprisonment

6
Supplied Evanda Harding with

Pseudoephedrine
30 October 2014
14 years’

imprisonment

7
Conspired to supply class A

controlled drug
5 November 2014
14 years’

imprisonment

8 Manufacture methamphetamine
6 to 14 November

2014
Life imprisonment

9 Possessed a class A controlled drug for supply 14 November 2014 Life imprisonment

10 Conspired to supply methamphetamine 15 November 2014
14 years’

imprisonment

11 Participates in an organised criminal group 23 September 2014 to 16 December 2014
10 years’

imprisonment

[4] The seriousness of your offending is underscored by the fact that seven of the

11 charges carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.1 The 11 charges include six of manufacturing methamphetamine, two of conspiring to supply methamphetamine, possession for supply, supplying pseudoephedrine and participating in an organised criminal group. As I am sure Mr Edgar will have explained to you the real issue for me today is whether the extent and seriousness of your offending should be reflected by the imposition of a term of life imprisonment or whether, instead, I should impose a lengthy finite sentence, and if so, of what duration.

[5] A sentence of life imprisonment means just that. It means that you would be liable for imprisonment for the rest of your life. You would only be released if the Parole Board decided that you were a suitable candidate for release. Whatever the position, this could not happen before you had served a minimum period of 10
years.2 And if parole was granted you would be subject to monitoring for the rest of

your life and could be recalled to continue serving your…

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 Harding

Details

AGLC: R v Harding [2017] NZHC 675
Case: [2017] NZHC 675
Decision Date: 7 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brownie Joseph Harding appeared for sentencing after pleading guilty to 11 charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Crimes Act 1961. The charges related to his role in a methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution network in Northland in late 2014. The court had to decide whether to impose a sentence of life imprisonment or a finite term of imprisonment, given the seriousness of Harding's offending. After considering Harding's role in the operation, his lack of previous drug-related convictions, and his guilty pleas, the court decided not to impose a sentence of life imprisonment by a fine margin. Instead, the court imposed a sentence of 28½ years' imprisonment with a minimum term of 10 years. The sentences were to be served concurrently.

Orders