R v Harland - [2017] NZHC 1226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-004-9435 [2017] NZHC 1226

THE QUEEN

v

STEPHEN JAMES HARLAND

Hearing: 7 June 2017

Appearances:

S McColgan for Crown
R Harrison for Defendant

Sentence:

7 June 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF FOGARTY J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitors, Auckland
Copy to:
R Harrison, Blenheim

R v HARLAND [2017] NZHC 1226 [7 June 2017]

[1] Mr Harland, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply. The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment. You were arrested as part of the termination of a drug operation, known as “Operation Tea”. It was an investigation into the supply of methamphetamine into the Canterbury region by the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Gang. Methamphetamine was being sourced in Auckland and transported into the Canterbury region by the use of air travel and by vehicles.

[2] On 13 September, you met with a co-defendant who gave you a rental car to drive to Christchurch. The co-defendant put a bag that contained a Nike shoe box in the back seat of the vehicle and informed you, you were to drive the car to Christchurch where he would meet you and take delivery of the box. The box contained 1.1558 kilograms of the class A controlled drug methamphetamine. This has been estimated to have a street value of $1.558 million. You were intercepted by the police as you came off the Inter-Islander Ferry at Picton.

[3] You have accepted that you were wilfully blind as to what was contained in the package. You are not, it would seem, a methamphetamine user yourself. You have no previous convictions. Because of the quantity of methamphetamine your level of offending is regarded as fitting within band 4 of the Court of Appeal decision settling the bands for sentencing. That is you were supplying a very large commercial quantity. That band triggers at 500 grams, let alone 1 kilogram.

[4] As I have said, you have no previous convictions. You have sent the Court an apology which I regard as a genuine apology and which I wish to read most of it out and put in the record. You say:

I would firstly like to express my sincerest apologies and remorse to the wider community for the impact these drugs would have had on its victims and their families.

I would also like to take this opportunity to apologise to my family for humiliating the family name and causing undue stress on my parents and siblings.

I know that there is no excuse for my actions over this time and if I was ever put in this position again I’d take the appropriate steps to find out what I have in my possession and why I have it in my possession.

[5] You have heard argument this morning whereby your counsel invited me to follow a few decisions which drop below band 4. I should emphasise that normally the sentencing involves a starting point of ten…

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 Harland

Details

AGLC: R v Harland [2017] NZHC 1226
Case: [2017] NZHC 1226
Decision Date: 7 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of The Queen v Stephen James Harland was heard on 7 June 2017. The defendant, Mr Harland, pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the severity of the offence and the defendant's circumstances. The legal issues included the starting point for sentencing, any applicable discounts for the defendant's early guilty plea and good character, and the final sentence to be imposed. The court was guided by the bands for sentencing set by the Court of Appeal and the decisions of R v Hughes, R v Pene, and R v Fatu. The court ultimately decided that a starting point of nine years was appropriate, taking into account the similarities between the case and R v Hughes, and then applied a 20 per cent discount for the early guilty plea and a further six-month discount for good character. The final sentence was six years and eight months imprisonment. The court did not make a forfeiture order and returned the funds seized by the police at the time of the defendant's arrest to him.

Orders