R v Hart - [2012] NZHC 2137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2010-088-003872 [2012] NZHC 2137

THE QUEEN

v

PATRICK JOSEPH HART

Hearing: 22 August 2012

Counsel: B O'Connor for the Crown
A Fairley for Mr Hart

Judgment: 22 August 2012

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors:
Ms B O’Connor, Marsden Woods Inskip & Smith, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
Mr A Fairley, Thomson Wilson, Solicitors, Whangarei

R V HART HC WHA CRI-2010-088-003872 [22 August 2012]

[1] Mr Hart, you may remain seated until I come to impose the sentence.

[2] As you will understand, I need to outline the circumstances of the offence and your personal circumstances in order to explain, not just to you but to many others including the wider community, why I am imposing the particular sentence I will impose.

[3] As you will understand from the discussions I have had with Mr Fairley and Ms O’Connor, I am in this case going to impose a sentence of home detention. I do want to make clear at the very beginning that this is a sentence being imposed entirely because of your particular personal circumstances, which I will come to. Were it not for these it would be a sentence of imprisonment.

Facts

[4] You are to be sentenced for two offences of conspiring to supply pseudoephedrine. This is a precursor substance used for the manufacture of methamphetamine. The maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment. Technically that is the maximum penalty on each of these offences.

[5] A short summary of the facts is as follows. Over two periods between 27

December 2008 and 13 January 2009 you conspired with others to supply ContacNT tablets. These contain pseudoephedrine. The first occasion involved four sets of ContacNT to be supplied for $10,000. On the second occasion there were nine sets to be supplied for $90,000.

[6] The estimated yield of methamphetamine from the 13 sets is 585 to 877 grams of methamphetamine. That is a lot of methamphetamine. Your role was to procure the ContacNT for on-supply by Kelly Dodd, one of your co-conspirators. The Crown acknowledges that the conspiracy was, in effect, driven by Mr Clarke – another co-conspirator – and he actually was in prison at the time.

Personal circumstances

[7] I will outline some of the relevant personal matters and develop this later.

[8] You are aged 41. You have some previous convictions; all of them are fairly low level. There has been only one prior conviction for a drug offence – this was cultivation of cannabis in 1998 when you were fined $500.

[9] You are in bad health. Medical certificates have been supplied. One of these refers to – and I quote – “multiple co-morbidities”. I will not read out the details. It is clear that you have significant problems. In addition, you require personal assistance from your partner for various things on a daily basis.

[10] I have taken account of the other matters noted in the pre-sentence report, as clarified by Mr Fairley’s submissions,…

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 Hart

Details

AGLC: R v Hart [2012] NZHC 2137
Case: [2012] NZHC 2137
Decision Date: 22 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Patrick Joseph Hart was sentenced for two offences of conspiring to supply pseudoephedrine, a precursor substance used for the manufacture of methamphetamine. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, which involved the supply of a significant quantity of ContacNT tablets containing pseudoephedrine, with an estimated yield of 585 to 877 grams of methamphetamine. Hart's role in the conspiracy was to procure the ContacNT for on-supply by another co-conspirator, Kelly Dodd.

The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for Hart, considering both the seriousness of the offence and his personal circumstances. The starting point for the sentence was determined to be around four years imprisonment, but this was reduced to no more than two years due to Hart's health issues, the conditions of his bail, his out-of-character offending, his recognition of the gravity of his actions, and his genuine regret. Additionally, the court considered Hart's late plea of guilty and the substantial support he provided to his wider whanau.

The court imposed a sentence of home detention for a period of 12 months, subject to the conditions outlined in the pre-sentence report. Hart was also discharged in respect of the other counts he was facing, as the Crown offered no evidence on those charges. The court further ordered the forfeiture of $669.40 in cash, to which Hart did not oppose.

Orders