[1] Evanda Harding, at the age of 18 you appear for sentence on six charges which broadly relate, directly or indirectly, to the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine.

[2] In respect of three of the charges you entered pleas of guilty on the morning of the first day of the trial on 27 June 2016. On the balance you were found guilty by a jury after a five week trial.

[3] The details of the charges are set out in the table below:

Charge

No.
Particulars Plea Dates of offences Maximum penalty

1 3 Possession of Class B pseudoephedrine for supply Guilty 23 October 2014
14 years’

imprisonment

2 4 Manufactured methamphetamine jointly with Brownie Harding, Elijah Rogers, Jaydean Hura and Anthony Mangu (s 66) Found guilty
28 October 2014 to

31 October 2014
Life imprisonment

3 5 Possession of Class B pseudoephedrine for supply Guilty 30 October 2014
14 years’

imprisonment

4 6 Manufactured methamphetamine jointly with Brownie Harding, Elijah Rogers, Jaydean Hura and Anthony Mangu (s 66) Found guilty
6 November 2014 to

14 November 2014
Life imprisonment

5 8 Possession of methamphetamine for supply Guilty 14 November 2014 Life imprisonment

6 9 Participation in an organised criminal group Found guilty 23 September 2014 to 16 December 2014
10 years’

imprisonment

[4] At trial you faced three charges of manufacturing methamphetamine. You were convicted on two with the jury unable to reach a verdict on the third. I

discharged the jury from giving a verdict and on the Crown’s application ordered a

re-trial.

Background

[5] I am required to set out the factual background to your offending. I do so despite it being obvious to you what you face sentence for and what the supporting facts are. However, because sentencing is an important function which must be undertaken in public it is necessary that I go through this background in some detail.

[6] Unlike your other co-defendants who I have already sentenced, I have since had the considerable advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence over five weeks of trial. And so these sentencing comments are drawn from that experience. Where in the course of these sentencing remarks I make findings on aggravating factors I do so on the basis of the evidence I heard and to the criminal standard which applies.

[7] In July 2014 the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand (“OFCANZ”) began a large scale covert investigation into the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine in Northland and elsewhere in New Zealand. The operation was codenamed “Easter”. Its focus was an organised group (“the Group”) largely comprised of patched members of the Headhunters Motor Cycle Gang and their affiliates.

[8] The…

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 [2016] NZHC 2069
Case: [2016] NZHC 2069
Decision Date: 1 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Evanda Harding, was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand at Whangarei on charges related to the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. The charges against Harding included possession of pseudoephedrine for supply, manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for supply, and participating in an organised criminal group. The court heard that Harding, aged 18, had been involved in a large-scale drug manufacturing operation led by his father, Brownie Harding, who was part of the Headhunters Motorcycle Gang. The operation involved several participants, each with different roles in the manufacturing and distribution of methamphetamine.

The legal issues the court had to decide included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the gravity and seriousness of the offending, considering the principles of sentencing such as accountability, denunciation, and deterrence, and adjusting the starting point based on mitigating and aggravating factors personal to Harding. The court also had to consider the totality of Harding's offending, his personal circumstances, and the impact of his age on the sentence.

The court reasoned that Harding's culpability was significant, though not at the level of the principal cooks in the operation. Harding's role evolved from a more peripheral involvement to an active participation in the later stages of the operation, particularly in the last phase when his father was serving a sentence of home detention. The court found that Harding's role was more than that of a mere "dog's body" but did not fit the description of a "supervisor" as argued by the Crown. The court set a starting point of 13 years' imprisonment for the manufacturing charges, with an uplift of two years for the remaining charges related to possession of pseudoephedrine and methamphetamine for supply. The court also considered Harding's age, personal circumstances, and the influence of his father in determining a substantial discount on the starting point. The final sentence was set at nine years and six months' imprisonment for the manufacturing charges, eight years for possession of methamphetamine for supply, six years for the pseudoephedrine charges, and five years for participating in an organised criminal group, to be served concurrently. The court also ordered the forfeiture of $1,110 found in Harding's wallet and $1,845 seized from his room, considering these funds were received in the course of the present offending.

Orders