R v Henderson - [2021] NZHC 1624

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-3685

[2021] NZHC 1624

THE QUEEN

v

PETER REX HENDERSON

Hearing: 2 July 2021

Appearances:

K Whyte for Crown

T Sutcliffe for Defendant

Judgment:

2 July 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

R v HENDERSON [2021] NZHC 1624 [2 July 2021]

[1] Mr Henderson, you have pleaded guilty to five representative charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, three charges of being in possession of equipment for use in the manufacture of methamphetamine, three charges of being in possession of material for use in the manufacture of methamphetamine, two charges of being in possession of precursor substances used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, one charge of offering methamphetamine for supply and one charge of being in unlawful possession of a firearm.

[2] The charges relating to the manufacture of, and offering to supply, methamphetamine carry maximum sentences of life imprisonment. The other drug- related charges carry maximum sentences of five years imprisonment. The charge of being in unlawful possession of a firearm carries a maximum sentence of four years imprisonment.

[3] The Crown offers no evidence on the remaining charges that you face, and I now discharge you on those under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.1

Factual background

[4] You are to be sentenced in accordance with an agreed summary of facts. This records that the charges against you were laid following the termination of a police investigation known as Operation Kingsville. This targeted the suspected manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine in the Waikato region between 2017 and 2020.

[5] The investigation revealed that you were responsible for carrying out the manufacture of methamphetamine at no fewer than four separate locations during the period covered by the police investigation. You were not, however, the ringleader or mastermind behind the network that the police uncovered. Several persons were above you in the hierarchy of that network.

[6] You were paid for the first two occasions on which you manufactured methamphetamine for the group. Thereafter you operated in accordance with instructions given by Mr Ray Tyler-Waugh. It seems that you continued to

1 Charges 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 46.

manufacture methamphetamine in response to either threats or offers of protection by the network. Mr Tyler-Waugh required you to manage the manufacturing process, thereby enabling him to limit the risk of being apprehended himself. I accept that you felt under considerable pressure from him and the summary records that you were effectively treated as one of the organisation’s tradable assets.

Offending at 54 Roberts Road

[7] Between 1 January and 30 April 2020 you were living at 54 Roberts Road in Tuakau. The police searched the address on 30 April 2020 whilst they were investigating an unrelated incident. During this search the police located a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory. Numerous items of equipment associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine were found at the address, along with 5.6 grams of iodine and…

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 Henderson

Details

AGLC: R v Henderson [2021] NZHC 1624
Case: [2021] NZHC 1624
Decision Date: 2 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Peter Rex Henderson was sentenced on five charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, three charges of possessing equipment for methamphetamine manufacture, three charges of possessing materials for methamphetamine manufacture, two charges of possessing precursor substances used in methamphetamine manufacture, one charge of offering methamphetamine for supply, and one charge of being in unlawful possession of a firearm. The maximum sentences for the methamphetamine manufacturing and offering to supply charges were life imprisonment, while the other drug-related charges carried a maximum five-year imprisonment sentence. The charge of being in unlawful possession of a firearm carried a maximum four-year imprisonment sentence. The court discharged Henderson on the remaining charges under section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The court considered the agreed summary of facts, which detailed Henderson's involvement in the manufacture of methamphetamine at various locations between 2017 and 2020. The court noted that Henderson was not the leader of the methamphetamine manufacturing network but was pressured by higher-ups to continue manufacturing. The court also considered the quantity of methamphetamine manufactured at each location, the materials and equipment found at each location, and the role Henderson played in the network.

The court identified the legal issues as selecting an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, and applying the appropriate sentence. The court noted that the precise role played by an offender is important, and the starting point selected by the judge who sentenced Mr Tyler-Waugh, who was higher up in the network than Henderson, was of greatest assistance. The court accepted the Crown's submission that a starting point of ten years imprisonment would be appropriate to reflect Henderson's overall culpability on the charges of manufacturing methamphetamine. However, the court accepted Henderson's counsel's submission that an uplift of no more than six months should be applied to reflect the remaining charges. The court considered the aggravating factor of Henderson's offending while on bail and the mitigating factor of his early guilty plea.

The court sentenced Henderson to seven years and nine months imprisonment on the manufacturing charges, two years and six months imprisonment on the possession charges, and ten months imprisonment on the firearm charge. All sentences were to be served concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of seven years and nine months imprisonment. The court also ordered the destruction of the firearm and the forfeiture of the cash found at the address of 54 Roberts Road.

Orders