R v Hines - [2017] NZHC 769

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-004-007734 [2017] NZHC 769

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM HINES

TE HERE MAIHI MAAKA TRAVIS JAMES SADLER
THOMAS GORDON EDWARDSON FALCO BROUQ CELLAH MAAKA JOHN GERARD VIJN
PETER FRANCIS ATKINSON

Hearing: 24 April 2017

Counsel:

BR Northwood and FMT Culliney for Crown
AJ Holland for defendant Hines
S Lack for defendant T Maaka
Q Duff for defendant Sadler

ME Goodwin for defendant Edwardson SNB Wimsett for defendant F Maaka DG Young for defendant Vijn

MP Hislop for defendant Atkinson

Judgment:

24 April 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland. A J Holland, Auckland.
S Lack, Auckland.
Q Duff, Wellington.
M E Goodwin, Auckland. S N B Wimsett, Auckland. D G Young, Auckland.
M P Hislop, Auckland.

R v HINES & ORS [2017] NZHC 769 [24 April 2017]

William Hines

[1] Mr Hines, you appear for sentence on 10 charges: (a) Manufacturing methamphetamine;
(b) Possessing that drug for the purpose of supply;

(c) Possessing materials in relation to the manufacture of methamphetamine;

(d)Possession of a firearm except for some lawful, proper and sufficient purpose (x 5);

(e) Possession of ammunition except for some lawful, proper and sufficient purpose; and

(f) Participation in an organised criminal group.

[2] You were found guilty by a jury after a five-week trial before me. You were found not guilty of two money laundering charges. I put those to one side, as I do the other charges in relation to which you were discharged at the conclusion of the prosecution case.

[3] The most serious of your offences is the manufacture of methamphetamine. On 18 April 2015 a large amount of methamphetamine was made at a semi-rural Auckland property. You dispute the amount made. So too your co-defendants. Neither you nor any other defendant wishes to adduce evidence on this issue. The matter has been dealt with by way of submission.1

[4] I am sure at least one kilogram of methamphetamine was made. I reach this conclusion for eight reasons. First, manufacture occurred eight days after Mr Jia Sun
supplied 4.46 kilograms of Contac-NT to Mr Sadler, your second-in-charge. This

1 Even though sentencing proceeded sequentially, all counsel were given an opportunity to be heard on this issue before Mr Hines was sentenced.

figure is known because the intercepted communications refer specifically to 20 sets of Contac-NT. Second, Mr Sun dealt in large amounts of that substance. Third, much time and effort were dedicated to this operation, in turn implying manufacture on a substantial scale. So too personnel vis-à-vis gang members under your direction. Fourth, Mr Atkinson, an experienced cook, was enlisted as an independent contractor. Fifth, there was nothing in the intercepted communications to imply dissatisfaction with his work. Sixth, conversion of 20 sets or 4.46 kilograms of Contac-NT to methamphetamine would typically produce between 900 grams and
1.3 kilograms of methamphetamine. Mr Atkinson was an experienced cook. Seventh, 136.5 grams of methamphetamine was found in a storage unit in early June
2015. Whereas…

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 Hines

Details

AGLC: R v Hines [2017] NZHC 769
Case: [2017] NZHC 769
Decision Date: 24 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

William Hines, the leader of a criminal organisation, was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, possessing precursor chemicals for that purpose, possessing firearms, ammunition, and participating in an organised criminal group. The court found that at least one kilogram of methamphetamine was manufactured, and that Hines had played an active role in the manufacturing process. The court sentenced Hines to a term of 18 and a half years’ imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 8 years and 4 months. The court found that Te Here Maaka was also a party to the methamphetamine manufacturing, and sentenced him to 16 years and 2 months’ imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 7 years and 3 months. The court found that Thomas Gordon Edwardson was guilty of possessing precursor chemicals for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine, and sentenced him to 6 years’ imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months. The court found that Falco Brouq Maaka was a party to the manufacturing of methamphetamine, and sentenced him to 13 years’ imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 5 years, 2 months, and 2 weeks. The court found that Peter Francis Atkinson was guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, and sentenced him to 17 years’ imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 7 years. The court found that John Gerard Vijn was guilty of possessing precursor chemicals for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine, and sentenced him to 4 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months.

Orders