R v Housham - [2016] NZHC 1652

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2015-088-003515 [2016] NZHC 1652

THE QUEEN

v

PHILLIP BRUCE HOUSHAM

Hearing: 20 July 2016

Appearances:

C A Anderson for Crown
D J Sayes for Prisoner

Judgment:

20 July 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF GILBERT J

Solicitors:
Marsden Woods Inskip, Whangarei
D J Sayes, Barrister, Whangarei

R v HOUSHAM [2016] NZHC 1652 [20 July 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Housham, you appear for sentence today having accepted a sentence indication and having pleaded guilty to the following 28 charges:

(a) Supplying methamphetamine (x 12).1

(b) Possessing methamphetamine for the purposes of supply (x 3).2

(c) Offering to supply methamphetamine (x 4).3

(d) Conspiring to supply methamphetamine (x 1).4

(e) Participating in an organised criminal group (x 1).5

(f) Offering to supply cannabis resin (x 3).6

(g) Offering to supply cannabis (x 3).7

(h) Possessing cannabis for the purposes of supply (x 1).8

Facts

[2] Your offending came to light as a result of Operation Atlas. This operation was an offshoot of a wider police investigation into the source of methamphetamine supply in the greater Northland area. The primary focus of the operation was on members of the Head Hunters Motorcycle gang and their associates who were identified as being responsible for the manufacture and distribution of
methamphetamine (the syndicate).

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(2A). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A. Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
6      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a). Maximum 10 years’ imprisonment.
7      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a). Maximum eight years’ imprisonment.
8      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(a). Maximum eight years’ imprisonment.

[3] As a result of the interception of conversations and text messages, you were identified as an associate of the gang whose primary role was to sell methamphetamine at street level for the syndicate. After selling the methamphetamine, you were required to turn over the proceeds of sale to senior members of the gang. You received payment for the sales but you were at the mercy of the gang and only received payment after you had settled your debt to the syndicate.

[4] The methamphetamine charges cover the period from 11 November 2015 to

12 December 2015. During this period, it is estimated that you supplied, offered to supply, or were in possession for the purposes of supply, of a total of approximately
36 grams of methamphetamine.

[5] The cannabis and cannabis resin charges cover the period from

27 October 2015 to 4 December 2015. The quantities are not stated but the summary of facts indicates that these were comparatively small scale deals involving payments of $20, $50 or $100.

Starting point

[6] The lead offending relates to the methamphetamine charges. It is…

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 Housham

Details

AGLC: R v Housham [2016] NZHC 1652
Case: [2016] NZHC 1652
Decision Date: 20 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phillip Bruce Housham was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand, Whangarei Registry, after pleading guilty to multiple charges related to the supply and possession of methamphetamine and cannabis, as well as participating in an organised criminal group. The court heard that Mr Housham was involved in the lower-tier distribution of methamphetamine for the Head Hunters Motorcycle gang, supplying approximately 36 grams of the drug between November and December 2015. He also dealt small quantities of cannabis and cannabis resin during the same period. The court had to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the extent of any uplift for additional offences, and the impact of mitigating factors such as his guilty pleas and personal circumstances. The starting point for the methamphetamine charges was determined to be four years and three months' imprisonment, with an additional four months added for the other drug-related offences. Mr Housham's plea of guilty resulted in a 25% discount on his sentence. Ultimately, Mr Housham was sentenced to three years and five months' imprisonment for the methamphetamine charges, 18 months for the cannabis-related charges, and six months for participating in a criminal group, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The effective sentence amounted to three years and five months' imprisonment.

Orders