R v Hughes - [2015] NZHC 22

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE SENTENCE AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (EXCEPT THE RESULT AS SET OUT IN

[21] IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL [RETRIAL]. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST

PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-092-013378

[2015] NZHC 22

THE QUEEN

v

MARK RAYMOND HUGHES

Hearing: 23 January 2015

Counsel:

Y V Yelavich for the Crown

S N B Wimsett for the Prisoner

Sentence:

23 January 2015

SENTENCE OF VENNING J

Counsel: S N B Wimsett, Auckland

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v HUGHES [2015] NZHC 22 [23 January 2015]

[1] Mark Hughes, you are for sentence, having pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a class A controlled drug for supply, methamphetamine. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

[2] Your involvement in the offending was limited, as is apparent from the summary of facts. The summary of facts discloses that a Mr Miranda flew from Auckland to Port Moresby, and returned to New Zealand on 13 November 2013 with a blue trolley suitcase and a computer in a backpack. On arrival in New Zealand, he was searched by Customs. The suitcase was found to contain one kilogram of methamphetamine, and the backpack another 500 grams. Mr Miranda agreed to assist the police and Customs by delivering the suitcase and the backpack to the intended recipients in New Zealand.

[3] A number of people were drawn into dealing with the drugs. On the instigation of a Mr Iwu, arrangements were made for Mr Miranda to hand over the bags to Mr Iwu in the vicinity of a New World supermarket on Tuesday, 19 November 2013. While Mr Miranda was waiting outside the supermarket, he was observed by Messrs Okpara and Ochibulu. He was kept under observation by them. Ultimately, he left the supermarket and the meeting did not take place. Mr Iwu remained at Mr Okpara’s address.

[4] The next day, Messrs Iwu and Okpara went to an internet café where they checked the progress of a parcel on its way to New Zealand. During the same day, Mr Miranda was again contacted by a woman, who introduced herself as Mr Iwu’s partner. This was a Ms Ishak. She had been recruited by Mr Obiaga as a means of him distancing himself from the hand-over of the suitcases from Mr Miranda.

[5] On 21 November 2013, Mr Obiaga sent a text message in the name of “Suzanne”, which was the attributed to Ms Ishak, to Mr Miranda arranging a meeting at 3.00 pm that day, when he was to hand over the bags and the laptop computer. From about 3.30 pm that day, on Thursday, 21 November 2013, you and Mr Leefe and Mr Rameka were in the vicinity of the Super Value Supermarket, Mangere Bridge, observing Mr Miranda under the directions of Mr Obiaga and Ms Leefe. Ms Ishak

phoned Mr Miranda at 5.32 pm, telling…

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 Hughes

Details

AGLC: R v Hughes [2015] NZHC 22
Case: [2015] NZHC 22
Decision Date: 23 January 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mark Hughes was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland for possession of a class A controlled drug for supply, methamphetamine. The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment. Hughes' involvement in the offending was limited; he was acting on instructions and did not know the quantity of drugs involved. The court considered the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002, taking into account the gravity of the offending, the seriousness of the offence, and the need for consistency in sentencing. The court also considered Hughes' personal factors, such as his low risk of reoffending and genuine remorse for his actions.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing and assessing the degree of Hughes' culpability. The Crown argued for a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment, while the defence submitted that Hughes' role in the offending was minor and that a starting point of eight years' imprisonment was more appropriate. The court agreed with the defence, finding that Hughes had no organisational role and was not a crucial player in the offending.

Venning J sentenced Hughes to imprisonment for five years and eight months, taking into account the mainly positive pre-sentence report and Hughes' guilty plea. The court noted that Hughes' involvement in the offending was limited, and he had no idea of the amount of drugs involved. The court also considered the effect of Hughes' offending on his family and the community.

This case highlights the importance of considering the role of the offender in determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing in drug-related offences. The court found that Hughes' limited involvement in the offending warranted a starting point of eight years' imprisonment, rather than the higher starting point proposed by the Crown. The court also emphasised the need to consider the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002 in determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders