Judge Tompkins sentenced Mr Honan to 12 months’ home detention in the Christchurch District Court for possession of methamphetamine for supply and attempting to manufacture methamphetamine.[1]
[1]R v Honan DC Blenheim CRI-2012-006-1533, 30 September 2014.
The Solicitor-General seeks leave to appeal the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly inadequate.

Background

On about 22 August 2012, Mr Honan and an associate, Mr Adams, began the process of manufacturing methamphetamine at a residential property in Diamond Harbour, near Christchurch. The property was being rented by Mr Adams. During the process there was an accident and Mr Honan received significant chemical burns to his arms and legs. After attempting to treat the burns himself, he was eventually hospitalised for three weeks.
While Mr Honan was in hospital, the police executed a search warrant at the Diamond Harbour property. They discovered areas of discolouration. Subsequent testing confirmed that the address was highly contaminated due to the presence of methamphetamine. Police also searched a Mazda motor vehicle seen leaving the address and discovered a small quantity of methamphetamine, drug utensils and $28,735 in cash. The car was registered to Mr Honan and being driven at the time by Mr Adams. Mr Adams told police the money belonged to him although later he claimed that it belonged to Mr Honan. For his part Mr Honan denied any knowledge of the money.
Shortly after his discharge from hospital, Mr Honan drove from Palmerston North to Wellington with his four year old son and a female associate, Ms Antunovich, in a Range Rover. The car belonged to Mr Honan. On 29 September 2012, on the journey back to the South Island, the vehicle was stopped and searched by police at Picton. In the boot, the police found a bag containing 23.3 grams of methamphetamine with a street value of approximately $23,300.
At the time, Mr Honan offered no explanation for the discovery of the methamphetamine.
On 1 October 2012, Mr Honan was charged with possession for supply of methamphetamine. He was granted bail to reside in Auckland where he commenced a residential treatment programme for drug addiction at Odyssey House. He pleaded guilty to possession for supply on arraignment on 28 May 2013.
On 1 November 2013, Mr Honan was charged with attempting to manufacture methamphetamine at the Diamond Harbour address in 2012. It is unclear why it took so long to bring the charge. In any event, Mr Honan pleaded guilty at his first appearance on 4 November 2013.
The sentencing on the two charges (attempting to manufacture and possession for…

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 Honan

Details

AGLC: R v Honan [2015] NZCA 94
Case: [2015] NZCA 94
Decision Date: 25 March 2015 at 4.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Honan involved an appeal by the Solicitor-General against the sentence imposed on Reuben Anthony Honan by the Christchurch District Court. Honan was sentenced to 12 months of home detention for possession of methamphetamine for supply and attempting to manufacture methamphetamine. The Solicitor-General argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard the appeal and issued its judgment on 25 March 2015.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence of 12 months’ home detention for Honan's drug-related offences was manifestly inadequate. The Court considered whether the starting point for sentencing was correctly identified, the extent of the uplift required for the additional charge, and the appropriateness of the discount for mitigating factors. The Court also examined whether the sentence was disproportionate compared to sentences imposed on co-offenders.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed by the District Court was indeed manifestly inadequate. The starting point for sentencing was set too low, at approximately four and a half years' imprisonment instead of the appropriate seven years. The discount for mitigating factors was also excessive, at 46% instead of the appropriate 20%. Additionally, there was marked disparity between the sentences imposed on Honan and his co-offenders, highlighting the inadequacy of Honan's sentence. The Court concluded that the sentence bore the hallmarks of being artificially tailored to achieve a desired outcome, which is impermissible.

However, the Court decided not to interfere with the sentence and allow Honan to complete his term of home detention. The Court noted that Honan had served six months of his sentence well and remained drug-free. Substituting a prison sentence for the remaining six months could undermine Honan's rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. The Court emphasized that this outcome should not be taken as an endorsement of the sentencing approach but rather reflected the specific circumstances of the case.

In summary, while the Court of Appeal found Honan's sentence to be manifestly inadequate, it declined to interfere with the sentence due to the successful completion of home detention, lack of direct victims, and other considerations. The Solicitor-General's appeal was accordingly declined.

Orders