R v Hastie
[2013] NZHC 1564
•26 June 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY
CRI-2010-070-7804 [2013] NZHC 1564
THE QUEEN
v
ALEXANDRA HASTIE and
KENNEDY O'CONNOR WILLIAMS
Hearing: 26 June 2013 (Heard at Rotorua)
Counsel: N Belton for the Crown
K W Burroughs for Ms Hastie
A Schulze and T Grimwood for Mr Williams
Sentencing: 26 June 2013
SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J
Solicitors:
Mr N Belton, Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Mr K W Burroughs, Solicitor, Hamilton
Mr A Schulze, Lance & Lawson, Solicitors, Rotorua
R v HASTIE and WILLIAMS [2013] NZHC 1564 [26 June 2013]
[1] Ms Hastie and Mr Williams, you appear for sentence for offences relating to methamphetamine manufacture and dealing and some other offences.
[2] The charges arose out of a Police operation which led to the charging and subsequent sentencing of, I think it is, nine other people. Six others were sentenced by me on 8 February 2013.[1] Both of you were to be sentenced then but your sentencing was deferred to give each of you an opportunity to complete treatment for drug addiction at Odyssey House.
[1] R v Duncan [2013] NZHC 193.
[3] Part of the background to your offences and matters of a general nature relating to sentencing for offences of this sort are contained in the sentencing notes for the other offenders. I do not intend to repeat all of that. It is to be taken to apply on this sentencing to the extent relevant.
[4] As with the other offenders on sentencing, I also do not intend to outline all of the facts relating to your offences. The individual offences and basic particulars are in the schedule attached to the February sentencing notes. I will attach another copy to these sentencing notes.
[5] Also, as with the other offenders, I do not intend to refer to all of the information relating to your personal circumstances. But this, together with all of the submissions made on your behalf, is taken into account as well as the submissions for the Crown.
Sentences in summary
[6] As I expect you will understand, I need to explain the reasons for the sentences I will impose, not just for your benefit but for the benefit of the community as a whole, as well as family. That will take some time. But it is appropriate to tell you at the outset what the sentences will be.
[7] Ms Hastie, I have determined that a sentence of home detention can be imposed on you. I do not have a home detention report. It is a technical thing that
needs to be done and for that reason what I am going to do is I am going to explain why I come to that conclusion and then I am going to adjourn your sentencing to get a home detention report. Hopefully, there will be a favourable report. I do want you to please concentrate on what I have to say because it is important in relation to the offences you have committed and the chance you are now getting.
[8] Mr Williams, your circumstances are somewhat different. The sentence that will be imposed on you is one of imprisonment of 3 years and 7 months. Mr Schulze, I think, has already indicated realistically that that was the expectation, that there would be a sentence of imprisonment.
Ms Hastie
[9] Ms Hastie, I will deal with your circumstances first. You are to be sentenced for the 15 offences recorded in the schedule.
[10] Mr Burroughs on your behalf submitted that the lead offence should be count
2, which is manufacture of methamphetamine. This was on the basis that the lead offence for some of the other offenders, including your former partner Mr Bramley, was methamphetamine manufacture. There is, with respect to Mr Burroughs, no comparison. Your manufacturing offence is at a very low level on the basis of the summary of facts with no known quantity. The manufacturing charges that Mr Bramley and Mr Duncan were sentenced on were at a very high level in terms of quantity and other matters.
[11] The Crown submits that the two conspiracies to manufacture methamphetamine, which are counts 8 and 16, should be the lead offences. It is relevant to note for comparative purposes that in the sentencing of other offenders these were counts 101 and 129 and in the February sentencing notes I refer to those count numbers. I agree with the Crown’s submission that these should be taken as the lead offences. However, I do not agree with the submission that the starting point should be anywhere near 9 years as submitted for the Crown. The Crown’s calculation is made on essentially the same basis as the calculation of a starting point of 10 years for Mr Corlett for the same offences. The Crown submits that in your
case it should be 1 year less on the basis that your involvement was slightly less than that of Mr Corlett. For reasons stated in the February sentencing I do not agree with the Crown’s methodology. I also consider that your culpability – your criminality – is not high relative to the others. You have committed serious offences Ms Hastie. But what I have to do is try and judge, in a practical sense, the role you played and the level of your culpability, as I say.
[12] The driving forces in count 101 – which is your count 8 – were Mr Duncan and Mr Bramley. Mr Bramley was your partner in a personal sense. I accept that he had a dominating personality – that you were in his thrall – with this influence further affected by your own drug addiction. And this really is a significant factor in my judgment in trying to assess the level of your responsibility or your criminality. Mr Duncan was the mastermind and controlled both conspiracies, although the first one also with Mr Bramley.
[13] My assessment is that the starting points for you for counts 8 and 16 combined should be 3 years imprisonment.
[14] There needs to be an increase to take account of the other offences. The Crown submits 3 years. Mr Burroughs did not propose a specific uplift. He submitted that the total, before reductions for personal factors, should be 3 years. As with the lead offences the assessment needs to be made having regard to the fact that you were in my judgment a minor player who was significantly influenced by Mr Bramley. This is not to say that you have no responsibility – you certainly do – or that you did not share financial benefits with Mr Bramley. You have said yourself that you did. But the level of your criminality, as I say, is diminished significantly.
[15] The increase I consider should be no more than 1 year which brings it to a total of 4 years imprisonment if imprisonment was to be imposed.
Personal factors
[16] I come to your personal factors and, as I mentioned, I am not going to go into a lot of detail, it is contained in the documents. You are now aged 26. You were 24
when these offences occurred. Mr Bramley is 12 years older than you. You have a small number of previous convictions which I do not consider are relevant. I am prepared to accept that difficulties in your family life contributed to your getting involved in the serious offending with Mr Bramley and led to the serious drug addiction. The precise sequence is not relevant. This assessment is based not only on the information you have provided directly or through others, but by comparing your life when you were offending with what you have since achieved. And it is what you have achieved which is in fact fundamentally the reason why you are getting home detention.
[17] You have made remarkable and commendable efforts to rehabilitate yourself. You were arrested in September 2010. From September 2011 you attended the Hanmer Clinic in Tauranga for addiction – just attending sessions. In December
2011 you were admitted to Odyssey House for intensive treatment of your drug addiction. You remained there until March 2013. You then discharged yourself. As discussed in the course of the submissions with counsel it is most unfortunate that you did not have the will power to completely complete the Odyssey House programme and I think if the opportunity arises – this is a matter for you – then you should consider that. But the reality is, Ms Hastie, from all of the information that is available to me you have made remarkable efforts at rehabilitation. You have been drug free – and there is no challenge to this, and there is no reason to doubt it – for a very extended period. You are now back at the Hanmer Clinic for ongoing support. You are getting other support for particular problems and you are pursuing tertiary education. It is abundantly clear that you are fortunate in having significant and important family support. That is important factor. It is now fundamentally up to you.
[18] In addition to this and, as I have mentioned I think, there have been periods when you have been subject to restrictive custody, or the equivalent of restrictive custody. That is another matter that I can take into account. These matters, when related to all relevant principles and purposes of sentencing – punitive matters as well as rehabilitative – justify a significant reduction in the sentence.
[19] A final reduction of around 15% is required for the guilty pleas. I intend to deal with all of that globally. If these reductions were applied as percentages to the 4 year uplifted starting point the end result would be under 2 years imprisonment. I am satisfied that you are entitled to an overall reduction of around 60%. I am satisfied that home detention is an appropriate sentence and, as I have just said, to meet punitive as well as rehabilitative requirements of sentencing.
[20] As I mentioned at the outset, because there is no home detention report, there will be need to formally adjourn the sentencing.
Mr Williams
[21] Mr Williams, I will now explain the reasons for your sentence. You are to be sentenced for 17 offences recorded in the schedule.
[22] The Crown submits that counts 1, 2 and 4, primarily, should be taken as the lead offences in a group. The counts are representative counts of conspiring to supply methamphetamine, supplying methamphetamine and offering to supply methamphetamine over a period of six months or so between March and September
2010. There were originally 73 separate counts charging one of those three offences. From the particulars in the Crown summary of facts, relating to the original 73 counts, the Crown submits that the totals involved for each offence are actual supply of 37 grams, offers to supply of 15.5 grams, and conspiracy to supply a total of 88.55 grams. The total of this is just over 141grams. The Crown submits that the starting point should be in the middle of band 2 of a case called Fatu[2] at around 6 to 6 ½ years imprisonment.
[2] R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA).
[23] Mr Schulze, on your behalf, submitted that the lead offence should be count 2 for actual supply and on the basis that the total was 4.5 grams of methamphetamine. Mr Schulze submits that the starting point should be towards the top or at the top of band 1 of Fatu at 3 ½ to 4 years imprisonment. Your defence proceeds on the basis that the total involved in the offers to supply was around 113 grams of
methamphetamine.
[24] This marked difference between the Crown’s approach and Mr Schulze’s approach arises from the summary of facts to which you pleaded guilty. There is a broad summary followed by particulars for all of the original counts. The particulars for each of the original counts are the basis for the Crown’s calculations.
[25] However, the general summary – and I do emphasise that this is the summary prepared I assume by the Police and presented by the Crown – contains the following statement – and I quote:
The investigation was only able to establish the actual supply of 4.5 grams of methamphetamine by Williams. He was however engaged in communications arranging the supply of a further 113.35 grams of methamphetamine, but the communications did not conclusively establish whether or not actual supply occurred.
That statement is at the forefront of the Crown’s summary of facts.
[26] This discrepancy is surprising. To the extent that there is some material doubt, you are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Mr Belton referred to the fact that the difference has been well known to the defence for some time because Crown submissions were made at the end of last year. The relevant consideration, however, is that you pleaded guilty to that summary of facts before anyone was making submissions. Notwithstanding that Mr Williams, I am satisfied that the starting point for the three counts of methamphetamine dealing, including the conspiracy to supply, justifies a starting point within band 2 of Fatu. Band 2 covers quantities between 5 and 250 grams with a range of 3 to 9 years imprisonment. I accept Mr Schulze’s submissions that an offer to supply a particular quantity cannot be equated with actual supply or possession for supply. And conspiracy to supply should be treated as something less than an offer, without trying to be mathematically precise about it.
[27] There are some further and particular considerations relating to your activities. In simple terms this is the other side of the coin in your favour. You were generally a dealer at a low level. In addition, it is not in issue that you were doing the bidding of Mr Duncan. I accept Mr Schulze’s submission that you were his lackey. And I accept that in considerable measure your offending was to supply your own drug habit, which is clearly a serious problem. The commercial operator was
Mr Duncan. You stayed casually at his home. The age difference between the two of you is significant in itself. He was 48 and you were 23. It is quite clear, having presided at the trial, that he is a dominating and forceful man. On the other hand you were participating in major commercial activities and I am satisfied that you were well aware that there were significant sums of money involved, even though it is apparent – and I accept – that there was no real financial gain for you. In this regard I also refer to the judgment on the disputed facts relating to the charge against you and Mr Duncan of attempting to pervert the course of justice by removing $500,000 that was buried on Mr Duncan’s property.
[28] Mr Williams, weighing these matters I am satisfied that the three methamphetamine dealing counts, 1, 2 and 4, should be taken together as the lead offences and that the starting point should be 5 years imprisonment.
[29] I note that this also is broadly consistent with the sentence imposed on one of the other accused, Mr Cooper, and being one of the other sentencing judgments referred to by Mr Schulze. In Mr Cooper’s case there was a starting point of 4 years
6 months for sales of 16 grams of methamphetamine – that is actually established sales and therefore well above the established sales in your case – and offers of 9 grams. However, on any realistic assessment, the level of your activity was above that of Mr Cooper after allowing for the fact that the proved actual supply by Mr Cooper was 16 grams.
[30] There needs to be an increase for the other offences. These include conspiring with Mr Duncan to supply 25 kilograms of iodine for methamphetamine manufacture, conspiring to manufacture up to 840 grams of methamphetamine – although the Crown accepts that your role was minor in that offence, conspiring to sell or offering to sell a total of around 250 grams of cannabis, and the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice that I referred to a moment ago. The Crown submits that there should be an increase in the starting point of 2 years for these other offences. Mr Schulze submits 1 year 6 months.
[31] I am satisfied that the increase for the other offences should be 1 year 6 months, bringing it to a total at this point of 6 years 6 months before reductions for personal factors.
Personal factors
[32] I now come to those. You are now 26. There are previous offences. The Crown submits that these justify an increase of 6 months. Mr Schulze submits that there should be some uplift but 3 months is sufficient. I agree with Mr Schulze.
[33] Apart from the guilty plea, which is to be brought into account at the end of the assessment, the other matters requiring consideration for possible reduction are your efforts at rehabilitation, time spent on electronically monitored bail and your age. You did admit yourself to Odyssey House and remained there for around 4 ½ months. But it seems that the strength of the addiction got the better of you. Not only did you cease the treatment but you removed the monitoring bracelet and absconded. Nevertheless, acknowledgement of the effort is required and some further efforts which you have been making in custody. There is acknowledgement required of some of the other matters that have been referred to me in respect of the more recent period in custody. You were on electronically monitored bail for a little over 16 months before going into Odyssey House. That amounted, in essential terms, to home detention. Then there were the restrictions at Odyssey House. You are not a youth, but you are still young. Some allowance does need to be made for these matters, but in particular for the time on EM bail. The allowance is 2 years. That, Mr Williams, is a generous allowance and one that, in spite of the fact that you are now going to prison, I hope you recognise and make the most of. This reduces
the sentence to 4 years 6 months.[3]
[3] This was stated in error. The period should have been 4 years 9 months. The 3 month uplift was overlooked. As a consequence, with the final calculation of 20% off for the guilty pleas, Mr Williams got a further reduction of approximately 2 months.
[34] You are then entitled to a credit for the guilty pleas. The Crown submits that the pleas, entered in September 2012, warrant a reduction of 20% because the pleas were pleas entered in the face of a strong case. Mr Schulze submits that the
maximum of 25% should be allowed. I consider that around 20% is a proper
allowance. You did plead guilty to only 17 counts, compared with a very large number you originally faced, but the 17 counts in large measure contained those earlier counts. The result is an end sentence for the lead offences of 3 years and 7 months imprisonment.
Formal sentence of Mr Williams
[35] Mr Williams, you should now stand please.
[36] On each of counts 1, 2 and 4 you are sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years 7 months.
(a) On counts 3 and 5, being conspiracy to sell cannabis and offering cannabis for sale you are sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months.
(b) Count 6 – conspiracy to supply iodine – 6 months.
(c) Count 7 – conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine – 2 years.
(d)Count 8 through to and including count 15, that is counts 9 through to count 15, 9 months.
(e) Count 16 – attempting to pervert the course of justice – 18 months.
Obviously these periods are all periods of imprisonment. (f) Count 17 – conspiracy to supply acetone – 9 months.
[37] Although it should be clear, all of those sentences are to be served concurrently.
[38] You should now stand down Mr Williams.
Adjournment – Ms Hastie
[39] Ms Hastie, if you could stand please. I am not going to add anything to what I have said. I will need to formally sentence you. Hopefully, in your interests there will be a favourable home detention report. I am going to adjourn your sentencing and remand you on bail. The existing bail conditions will continue, and I think that is to your mother’s home in Papamoa. The sentencing date will have to be fixed and I cannot do that at the moment.
[40] I am going to remand you for formal and final sentence on a date to be fixed, and you will be notified of that.
[41] In addition, on counts 9, 10 and 13 the Crown offered no evidence and you are discharged on those counts.
Woodhouse J
SCHEDULE OF HIGH COURT INDICTMENT OFFENCES FOR SENTENCING
Count # (203 count indictment)
Count # (164 count indictment)
Count # (77 count indictment)
Count # (5 count indictment)
Charge Duncan
R A
Bramley Corlett Clark
(Russell)
Hastie
(see n 3)
Walker Williams H (see n 2)
1 1 1 1 See note 1
2 2 2 2 See note 1
3 3 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 3.3.10 P 1
4 4 3 Manufactured methamphetamine – on or about P P
7.3.10
5 5 4 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 8.3.10 P 1
6 6 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – between P 1
8.3.10 and 10.3.10
7 7 Supplied methamphetamine – 11.3.10 and 12.3.10 P 4
8 8 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 12.3.10 P 1
and13.3.10
9 9 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 12.3.10 P 1
10 10 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 13.3.10 P 1
11 11 Supplied methamphetamine – 13.3.10 P 2
12 12 5 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 19.3.10 P 1
and 20.3.10
13 13 6 Conspired to supply precursor substance P
(pseudoephedrine) – 20.3.10
14 14 7 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 21.3.10 P
15 15 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 24.3.10 P 1
16 16 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 26.3.10 P 1
17 17 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 27.3.10 P 1
18 18 Conspired to sell cannabis – 8.4.10 P 3
19 19 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 9.4.10 P 1
20 20 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 9.4.10 P 1
21 21 8 Conspired to supply precursor substance P P
(pseudoephedrine) – 9.4.10
22 22 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – between P 1
9.4.10 and 11.4.10
23 23 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 11.4.10 P 1
24 24 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 13.4.10 P 1
Count # (203 count indictment)
Count # (164 count indictment)
Count # (77 count indictment)
Count # (5 count indictment)
Charge Duncan
R A
Bramley Corlett Clark
(Russell)
Hastie
(see n 3)
Walker Williams H (see n 2)
25 25 9 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 14.4.10 P 1
26 26 Supplied methamphetamine – 15.4.10 P 2
27 27 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 15.4.10 P 1
28 28 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 15.4.10 P 1
29 29 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 16.4.10 P 4
30 30 Conspired to sell cannabis – 16.4.10 and 17.4.10 P 3
31 31 10 Manufactured methamphetamine – between 17.4.10 P 2
and 19.4.10
32 32 Offered to sell cannabis – 20.4.10 P 5
33 33 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – between P 1
20.4.10 and 22.4.10
34 34 11 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 21.4.10 P 1
35 35 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 22.4.10 P 1
36 36 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 22.4.10 P 1
37 37 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 22.4.10 P 1
38 38 Conspired to sell cannabis – 23.4.10 and 24.4.10 P 3
39 39 12 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 24.4.10 P 1
40 40 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 27.4.10 P 1
41 41 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 27.4.10 P 1
42 42 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 28.4.10 P 1
and 29.4.10
43 43 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 28.4.10 P 1
and 29.4.10
44 44 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 30.4.10 P 1
45 45 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 30.4.10 P 1
46 46 Supplied methamphetamine – on or about 4.5.10 P 2
47 47 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 6.5.10 P 1
48 48 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 6.5.10 P 1
49 49 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 11.5.10 P 1
50 50 Supplied methamphetamine – 12.5.10 P 2
51 51 13 Conspired to supply material – 12.5.10 (NEO) (NEO)
Count # (203 count indictment)
Count # (164 count indictment)
Count # (77 count indictment)
Count # (5 count indictment)
Charge Duncan
R A
Bramley Corlett Clark
(Russell)
Hastie
(see n 3)
Walker Williams H (see n 2)
52 52 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 12.5.10 P 1
53 53 14 Conspired to supply GBL – 12.5.10 and 13.5.10 P P 3
54 54 15 Possession of methamphetamine for supply – P 4
between 12.5.10 and 15.5.10
55 55 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 15.5.10 P 1
56 56 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 15.5.10 P 1
57 57 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 15.5.10 P 1
58 58 16 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 15.5.10 P 1
59 59 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 19.5.10 P 1
60 60 17 Conspired to supply precursor substance P
(pseudoephedrine) – 20.5.10
61 61 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 21.5.10 P 1
62 62 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 21.5.10 P 1
63 63 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 22.5.10 P 1
64 64 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 22.5.10 P 1
65 65 18 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 23.5.10 P 1
and 24.5.10
66 66 19 Supplied methamphetamine – on or about 25.5.10 P 5
67 67 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 10.6.10 P 4
68 68 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 16.6.10 P 4
69 69 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 20.6.10 P 1
and 21.6.10
70 70 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 22.6.10 P 1
71 71 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 26.6.10 P 1
72 72 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 26.6.10 P 1
73 73 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 26.6.10 P 1
and 27.6.10
74 74 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 28.7.10 P 1
75 75 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 30.7.10 P 1
76 76 20 Permits premises to be used for the manufacture of P 6
methamphetamine – between 1.4.10 and 30.7.10
Count # (203 count indictment)
Count # (164 count indictment)
Count # (77 count indictment)
Count # (5 count indictment)
Charge Duncan
R A
Bramley Corlett Clark
(Russell)
Hastie
(see n 3)
Walker Williams H (see n 2)
77 77 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – between P 1
2.8.10 and 4.8.10
78 78 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 4.8.10 P 1
79 79 21 Offered to supply class B GBL – 7.8.10 P
80 80 22 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 8.8.10 P
81 81 23 Possession of methamphetamine for supply – on or P 7
about 8.8.10
82 82 Supplied methamphetamine – on or about 10.8.10 P 2
83 83 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 10.8.10 P 1
84 84 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 12.8.10 P 1
85 85 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 12.8.10 P 1
86 86 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 14.8.10 P 1
87 87 Supplied methamphetamine – on or about 16.8.10 P 2
88 88 24 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 17.8.10 P 1
89 89 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 18.8.10 P 1
90 90 25 Supplied class B GBL – 19.8.10 P
91 91 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 19.8.10 P 1
92 92 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 20.8.10 P 1
93 93 26 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 20.8.10 P
94 94 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 22.8.10 P 1
and 23.8.10
95 95 Supplied methamphetamine – on or about 23.8.10 P 2
96 96 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 24.8.10 P 1
97 97 27 Supplied methamphetamine – 26.8.10 P
98 98 See note 4
99 99 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 27.8.10 P 1
100 100 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 28.8.10 P 4
101 101 28 Conspired to manufacture methamphetamine –
between 2.8.10 and 29.8.10
102 102 29 Possession of methamphetamine for supply –
29.8.10
P P P P 8 P
P P
Count # (203 count indictment)
Count # (164 count indictment)
Count # (77 count indictment)
Count # (5 count indictment)
Charge Duncan
R A
Bramley Corlett Clark
(Russell)
Hastie
(see n 3)
Walker Williams H (see n 2)
103 103 30 Possession of precursor substance (pseudoephedrine)
– 29.8.10
104 104 31 Possession of precursor substance (hydrochloric acid) – 29.8.10
P P P
P 9 (NEO)
105 105 32 Possession of class B GBL for supply – 29.8.10 P 10 (NEO)
106 106 33 Possession of precursor substance (toluene) –
30.8.10
P P (NEO) P
107 107 34 Possession of material (sodium hydroxide) – 30.8.10 P P (NEO) P
108 108 35 Possession of equipment capable of being used to manufacture methamphetamine – 30.8.10
109 109 36 Possession of equipment capable of being used to manufacture methamphetamine – 24.9.10
P P (NEO) P
P P (NEO) P
110 110 37 Possession of hypophosphorous acid – 24.9.10 P P (NEO) P
111 111 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 2.9.10 P 4
112 112 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 2.9.10 P 1
113 113 38 Supplied precursor substance (pseudoephedrine) –
4.9.10
114 114 39 Conspired to supply precursor substance (toluene) –
6.9.10
115 115 40 Conspired to supply Iodine – between 10.9.10 and
17.9.10
P
P P
P P 6
116 116 41 Possession for supply of class B GBL – 11.9.10 (NEO)
117 117 42 Supplied class B GBL – on or about 12.9.10 P
118 118 Supplied class B GBL – on or about 12.9.10 – See ?
note 5
119 119 43 Conspired to supply class B GBL – 16.9.10 P 11 P
120 120 44 Offered to supply class B GBL – 13.9.10 P
121 121 45 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 13.9.10 P
122 122 46 Supplied methamphetamine – on or about 13.9.10 P
123 123 47 Attempted to pervert the course of justice – between
5.8.10 and 21.9.10 – See note 5
124 124 48 Conspired to pervert the course of justice – between
29.8.10 and 21.9.10
P (NEO) ? P
P P P 12 (NEO)
Count # (203 count indictment)
Count # (164 count indictment)
Count # (77 count indictment)
Count # (5 count indictment)
Charge Duncan
R A
Bramley Corlett Clark
(Russell)
Hastie
(see n 3)
Walker Williams H (see n 2)
125 125 49 Supplied equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine – on or about 19.9.10
13 (NEO)
126 126 50 Supplied methamphetamine – 19.9.10 P 14
127 127 51 3 Supplied equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine – on or about 20.9.10
128 128 52 Conspired to supply precursor substance
(pseudoephedrine) – 20.9.10
P
P 15 P
129 129 53 Conspired to manufacture methamphetamine –
between 28.8.10 and 20.9.10
130 130 54 Possession of precursor substance (hydrochloric acid) – 20.9.10
131 131 55 Possession of precursor substance (acetone) –
20.9.10
P P P 16 P 7
P P 8
P P 9
132 132 56 Possession of iodine – 20.9.10 P P 12
133 133 57 Possession of sodium hydroxide – 20.9.10 P P 13
134 134 58 Possession of hypophosphorous acid – 20.9.10 P P 14
135 135 59 Possession of precursor substance (pseudoephedrine)
– 20.9.10
136 136 60 Possession of precursor substance (sulphuric acid) –
20.9.10
137 137 61 Possession of equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine – 20.9.10
138 138 62 Supplied precursor substance (pseudoephedrine) –
13.9.10
139 139 63 Possession of precursor substance (pseudoephedrine)
– between 13.9.10 and 19.9.10
P P 10
P P 11
P P 15
P
P
140 140 64 4 Possession of cannabis for supply – 20.9.10 P
141 141 65 Attempted to pervert the course of justice – between
20.9.10 and 21.9.10
142 142 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – between
21.9.10 and 23.9.10
143 143 66 Conspired to supply precursor substance (acetone) –
between 23.9.10 and 25.9.10
P P 16
P 1
P P 17
144 144 Supplied methamphetamine – 23.9.10 P 2
145 145 67 Offered to supply methamphetamine – 24.9.10 (NEO)
Count # (203 count indictment)
Count # (164 count indictment)
Count # (77 count indictment)
Count # (5 count indictment)
Charge Duncan
R A
Bramley Corlett Clark
(Russell)
Hastie
(see n 3)
Walker Williams H (see n 2)
146 146 68 Conspired to supply class B GBL – 25.9.10 P 17 P
147 147 69 Conspired to supply methamphetamine – 25.9.10 P P 1
148 148 70 Money laundering – 10.8.10 (NEO)
149 149 71 Money laundering – 17.8.10 P P 18
150 150 72 5 Money laundering conspiracy – between 3.9.10 and P P
25.9.10
151 151 73 Money laundering – between 7.9.10 and 25.8.10 P
152 152 74 See note 6
153 153 75 See note 6
154 154 76 See note 6
155 155 77 See note 6
156 -203 156-164 See note 7
TOTAL NO. OF HIGH COURT COUNTS TO BE SENTENCED ON:
BRAMLEY DISTRICT COURT COUNTS (see note 8):
30 19 11 2 15 1 17 12
13
Notes:
“NEO” denotes charges on which the Crown will offer no evidence, resulting in discharge of the particular defendant on that charge.
1. These counts were against Mr Duncan and Mr Bramley. They were found not guilty.
2. Original counts against Mr Williams severed off to separate indictment. He pleaded guilty to all charges. The numbers in the Williams column refer to the count numbers in the new indictment against him alone.
3. Original counts against Ms Hastie severed off to separate indictment. She pleaded guilty to all charges save counts 9, 10 and 13 - NEO. The numbers in the Hastie column refer to the count numbers in the new indictment against her alone.
4. Count 98 was a charge against Mrs A J Duncan. She has already been sentenced.
5. Counts 118 (in the 203 count indictment and in the 164 count indictment) was a charge against Ms Hastie. Count 123 (in the 203 count indictment and in the 164 count indictment) was a charge against Ms
Hastie and others. There are no charges against Ms Hastie in this regard in the 77 count indictment or in the separate indictment against Ms Hastie alone.
6. Counts 152-155 (in the 203 count indictment – counts 74-77 in 77 count indictment) against Mr Duncan have been severed off for separate trial.
7. Counts 156-203 (in the 203 count indictment) were charges against Mr Cooper alone. He has already been sentenced.
8. Mr Bramley’s District Court counts for sentence are noted in the body of the sentencing comments.