R v Hura

Case [2016] NZHC 777 22 April 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2014-088-003309 [2016] NZHC 777

THE QUEEN

v

JAYDEAN HURA

Hearing: 22 April 2016

Appearances:

R Annandale for Crown
L Cordwell for Defendant

Sentence:

22 April 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v HURA [2016] NZHC 777 [22 April 2016]

[1] Mr Hura, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to five charges of manufacturing methamphetamine and one charge of participating in an organised criminal group. The maximum sentences in respect of the manufacturing charges are life imprisonment, whilst the maximum sentence in respect of the remaining charge is ten years imprisonment.

[2] You also face several other charges, including two charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, two charges of being in possession of a precursor substance, 14 charges of being in possession of equipment and four charges of being in possession of material. The Crown offers no evidence on those charges, and you are now discharged on them pursuant to s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

Background

[3] I take your offending to be accurately described in a summary of facts that the Crown has presented and with which your counsel takes no issue. This reveals that the charges to which you have pleaded guilty were laid at the termination of a large police operation known as Operation Easter. That operation focussed on the manufacturing and distribution of methamphetamine on a large-scale basis in the Northland area.

[4] The aspects of the operation were spearheaded by its acknowledged leader, Mr Brownie Harding. He was responsible for putting together the personnel and equipment necessary to manufacture methamphetamine. He was also responsible for organising the distribution networks.

[5] Your role in the operation was that of a methamphetamine cook. You arrived at the premises where methamphetamine was to be manufactured. You used the precursor substances, materials and equipment that were already there to manufacture methamphetamine.

[6] The police discovered that this was being done from a rural address in Northland. The police placed the address under surveillance, and they were able to see who came and went from it. The period during which you were involved in

manufacturing methamphetamine at the address was between 30 September 2014 and 14 December 2014.

[7] During this ten week period, the total amount of methamphetamine manufactured at the address was at least nine kilograms. This became known in two ways. First, the police, acting under the authority of a warrant issued by this Court, installed an audio device in the property on 17 October 2014. This enabled them to listen to conversations that occurred whilst the manufacturing process was in train. You were there on three of those occasions. From the discussions that took place during this period, the police learned that between 20 and 23 October 2014 a total of
2.545 kilograms of methamphetamine was manufactured. 1.94 kilograms was manufactured during a cook that took place between 28 and 31 October 2014, and
2.8 kilograms was manufactured at a final cook between 6…

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 Hura

Details

AGLC: R v Hura [2016] NZHC 777
Case: [2016] NZHC 777
Decision Date: 22 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Jaydean Hura, the defendant was sentenced for his involvement in the manufacturing and distribution of methamphetamine in Northland, New Zealand. Hura pleaded guilty to five charges of manufacturing methamphetamine and one charge of participating in an organised criminal group. The case arose from a large police operation known as Operation Easter, which targeted the large-scale manufacturing and distribution of methamphetamine in the Northland area. Hura's role in the operation was that of a methamphetamine cook, and over a ten-week period, at least nine kilograms of methamphetamine were manufactured under his involvement.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Hura's involvement in the manufacturing of methamphetamine and his participation in an organised criminal group. The starting point for the sentence was guided by the Court of Appeal's judgment in R v Fatu, which established bands of offending for the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine. For cases involving more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, the starting point is between 13 years to life imprisonment. The court considered various factors, such as Hura's role in the operation, his level of involvement, and his culpability, in determining the appropriate starting point.

After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court selected a starting point of 21 years imprisonment for Hura's culpability on all charges. The court also applied a 20% discount for Hura's guilty pleas, resulting in a sentence of 16 years 8 months imprisonment on each of the manufacturing charges, to be served concurrently. A minimum term of imprisonment of 50% was imposed on each of the manufacturing charges, and a sentence of 4 years imprisonment was imposed for the charge of being part of an organised criminal group, to be served concurrently with the remaining sentences.

In conclusion, Jaydean Hura was sentenced to 16 years 8 months imprisonment on each of the manufacturing charges, with a minimum term of imprisonment of 8 years 4 months on each charge, and a concurrent sentence of 4 years imprisonment for participating in an organised criminal group. The court considered the nature and extent of Hura's involvement in the manufacturing and distribution of methamphetamine, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors, in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders