R v Harvey - [2014] NZHC 2795

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-225 [2014] NZHC 2795

THE QUEEN

v

DANIEL RALPH HARVEY

Hearing: 30 October 2014

Appearances:

E J McCaughan for the Crown
R M Mansfield for the Defendant

Sentencingdate:

30 October 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF THOMAS J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland.

Counsel:
R M Mansfield, Auckland.

R v HARVEY [2014] NZHC 2795 [30 October 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Harvey, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to:

(a) one representative charge of knowingly permitting premises to be used for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine; and

(b) one charge of possession of methamphetamine.

[2] The maximum penalty on the charge of knowingly permitting premises to be used is 10 years’ imprisonment and the maximum penalty on the possession charge is six months’ imprisonment.

Facts

[3] The facts are that between December 2011 and February 2012, you leased an industrial unit located in Glenfield. Between 29 December and 23 February, you allowed associates to manufacture methamphetamine at the unit on four occasions. The amount of methamphetamine manufactured on those four occasions is unknown.

[4] You also assisted in the manufacture of methamphetamine. On 30 December

2011, you agreed to air out the unit to remove any fumes. Between 19 and 24

January 2012, you provided one of your associates with unidentified items for the manufacturing process. On another occasion you agreed to move the “pots” at the unit. And on 21 February 2012 you agreed to bring bags of ice to the unit.

[5] On 9 January 2012 you received one ounce of methamphetamine as a reward for allowing your associates to manufacture at the address. The summary of facts notes that an ounce of methamphetamine generally sells for between $8,000 and
$15,000 per ounce and could be worth around $28,000 if it were split up and sold as

“points”.

Personal circumstances

[6] You do not have any relevant prior convictions, and indeed Mr Harvey, I have to say, given your age it is extraordinary to me that you allowed yourself to become involved in offending of this serious nature. The Crown does not seek an uplift on the basis of your criminal record. I note that for your previous convictions you have only received fines, a disqualification from driving and, on one occasion, reparation.

[7] Your pre-sentence report tells me you are 39 years old and live with your parents. For the past two years you have been employed by a commercial cleaning company, working Monday to Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. You are the manager of the workshop repairs, sale and services and your work involves repairing and maintenance of commercial cleaning equipment. I have before me a letter from the director of that company. He says you are an integral part of the company and a very important staff member. He says you are very reliable, punctual, have a good work ethic, and give “110 per cent” to the job. He says he would hate to lose you as…

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 Harvey

Details

AGLC: R v Harvey [2014] NZHC 2795
Case: [2014] NZHC 2795
Decision Date: 30 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Harvey was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The defendant, Daniel Ralph Harvey, pleaded guilty to knowingly permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine and to possessing methamphetamine. The Crown proposed a starting point of three to three and a half years’ imprisonment, while the defence argued for a starting point of no more than two years and six months. The court considered the relevant case law and determined that a starting point of two years and nine months’ imprisonment was appropriate.

The legal issues included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, taking into account personal aggravating and mitigating factors, and assessing the discount for the defendant’s guilty plea. The court found no personal aggravating factors and granted a limited discount of 5% for personal mitigating factors, such as the defendant's stable employment and family support. The court also granted a 20% discount for the defendant’s guilty plea, considering the circumstances in which it was entered.

The court concluded that a sentence of home detention, coupled with community work, was the least restrictive outcome that could achieve the purposes of sentencing, including denunciation and deterrence. The defendant was sentenced to 12 months’ home detention and 300 hours of community work on the charge of permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine, with a concurrent sentence of two months’ home detention on the charge of possession of methamphetamine. Specific conditions were set for the home detention, including electronic monitoring, abstaining from alcohol and drugs, and avoiding association with previous offending associates.

Orders