R v Hyde - [2012] NZHC 3355

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2011-092-17056 [2012] NZHC 3355

THE QUEEN

v

JAIME CLARE HYDE

Hearing: 12 December 2012 (Heard at AUCKLAND)

Counsel: A Gordon for Crown
I Farquhar for Prisoner

Judgment: 12 December 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R V JAIME CLARE HYDE HC ROT CRI-2011-092-17056 [12 December 2012]

Introduction

[1] Ms Hyde, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty in this Court to five charges. They are charges of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply, supplying methamphetamine, offering to supply methamphetamine, offering to supply Ecstasy and conspiring to be in possession of methamphetamine.

[2] The charges of supplying methamphetamine, being in possession of methamphetamine for supply and offering to supply methamphetamine all carry maximum sentences of life imprisonment. The charges of conspiring to possess methamphetamine for supply and offering to supply Ecstasy carry maximum sentences of 14 years imprisonment.

Facts

[3] Your offending came to light after police received information to the effect that you were involved in dealing drugs. They then obtained search warrants of your cellphone, and very soon thereafter they discovered that you were involved in dealing in methamphetamine and other drugs in a very substantial way. It is not necessary for present purposes to go into the facts of your offending in any great detail. The summary of facts, with which you take no exception, makes it clear that you were an extremely busy dealer in methamphetamine between 1 September and
25 October 2011. On a virtually daily basis, you would send text messages to persons whom you thought might be interested in purchasing drugs, and receive text messages from persons who were interested in obtaining drugs from you.

[4] You were not selling at street level, because you were not dealing in “point” amounts. Rather, you were dealing in ounce, half ounce and quarter ounce lots. You would also sell methamphetamine in grams. This means that you were operating at one level above a street dealer.

[5] On several occasions, also, you were prepared to become involved in discussions about the supply of Ecstasy. This means that you dealt in more than one type of illegal drug.

[6] In all, the summary records that you were involved in discussions relating to the supply of approximately 400 grams of methamphetamine.

[7] The police terminated the operation on 2 October 2011. On that date, they searched your apartment and discovered paraphernalia suggesting involvement with the supply and use of methamphetamine. These included tick lists and hypodermic syringes, two of which had traces of methamphetamine left inside them. In addition, the police found items such as straws and spoons that are commonly associated with the consumption of methamphetamine.

[8] You were arrested on the same date at Auckland International Airport. You were on your way to spend a two week holiday in Perth. When the police arrested you, they found the cellphone you had been using during the course of your drug dealing activities.

Sentencing Act 2002

[9] As…

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 Hyde

Details

AGLC: R v Hyde [2012] NZHC 3355
Case: [2012] NZHC 3355
Decision Date: 12 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hyde involved the sentencing of Jaime Clare Hyde, who pleaded guilty to five charges including possession of methamphetamine for supply, supplying methamphetamine, offering to supply methamphetamine, offering to supply Ecstasy, and conspiring to be in possession of methamphetamine. The Crown accepted that Hyde's sentencing should be delayed until after she gave birth and her child was settled. The court considered the nature and extent of Hyde's drug dealing activities, which involved the supply of approximately 400 grams of methamphetamine. The court determined that the starting point for sentencing should be nine years and six months imprisonment, reflecting the upper end of band three for large scale commercial supply of methamphetamine. The court also considered mitigating factors such as Hyde's guilty pleas, previous good character, remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation. The final sentence imposed was six years and four months imprisonment on the charges of supplying methamphetamine and being in possession of methamphetamine for supply, to be served concurrently with five years imprisonment for offering to supply methamphetamine, three years for offering to supply Ecstasy, and three years for conspiring to be in possession of methamphetamine. The court also made orders for the destruction of the paraphernalia found at Hyde's house.

Orders