R v Ilton - [2022] NZHC 3400

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2020-009-3724

[2022] NZHC 3400

THE KING

v

TRENT MICHAEL FRANCIS ILTON

Hearing: 14 December 2022

Appearances:

C C White for Crown

A M S Williams and K Bucher for Defendant

Judgment:

14 December 2022

Reissued:

14 December 2022

REDACTED SENTENCING REMARKS OF OSBORNE J

Introduction

[1]Mr Ilton, I am going to ask you to stand.

[2] Trevor Michael Francis Ilton, you appear for sentence in relation to the following charges to which you pleaded guilty on 13 May 2022:

(a)first, possession of methamphetamine for supply;1

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2) – maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

R v ILTON [2022] NZHC 3400 [14 December 2022]

(b)secondly, obstructing or hindering a medical officer of health or a person assisting the medical officer;2 and

(c)thirdly, failure to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search under the Search and Surveillance Act.3

[3] As counsel have mentioned, I provided you with a sentencing indication on 4 May 2022, following which you entered your guilty pleas. I will now be sentencing you in the light of that indication, which will be attached as Schedule A to the typed version of these sentencing remarks.

[4] Now, Mr Ilton, I am shortly going to ask you to sit again while I explain the sentence I will be imposing on you. This will take some time and I will indicate towards the end when you need to stand again. So, please be seated now.

The offending

[5] You agreed with the summary of facts presented by the Crown and I now summarise those facts.

The methamphetamine operation

[6] In October 2019, the Canterbury Organised Crime Unit commenced an investigation into the drug dealing activities of members and associates of the Tribesmen Motorcycle Club (Tribesmen) gang in Canterbury. It was revealed Tribesmen members and associates were regularly involved in the purchase and distribution of significant quantities of methamphetamine. You were an associate of the Tribesmen and Mr McMeekan was a prospect of that gang.

[7] You were involved in organising logistics for the methamphetamine operation, such as travel bookings, cash and gear storage. You also counted money collected by the gang prior to its transportation to Auckland on at least three occasions four to five weeks apart. The quantity of money was such that it was counted in bundles of

2 Health Act 1956, s 72(d) – maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $4,000.

3 Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 178 – maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.

$10,000 and significantly exceeded $100,000 each time. Further, you were involved in transporting the money that had been counted. On one occasion, you went to Christchurch Airport with two others and entered the security screening area separately, you carrying a backpack. After 13 minutes, you left the departure lounge without attempting to board a flight and without the bag you had been…

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 Ilton

Details

AGLC: R v Ilton [2022] NZHC 3400
Case: [2022] NZHC 3400
Decision Date: 14 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ilton, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involved Trevor Michael Francis Ilton who was sentenced for possession of methamphetamine for supply, obstructing or hindering a medical officer of health or a person assisting the medical officer, and failure to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search under the Search and Surveillance Act. The court considered the role Ilton played in a methamphetamine operation, his involvement in logistical organisation, and the quantities of drugs and cash involved. The legal issues included determining the appropriate sentencing band and category for Ilton's role in the operation, and whether personal mitigating factors warranted any discount in the sentence. The court decided that Ilton's role was at the lower end of a "significant" role and at the higher end of a "lesser" role, resulting in a starting point of nine-and-a-half years' imprisonment. The court allowed a credit of 20% for Ilton's guilty plea and a five per cent discount for personal circumstances, resulting in a final sentence of seven years and three months' imprisonment for the methamphetamine charge, a concurrent sentence of two months' imprisonment for the computer search charge, and a conviction and discharge for the Health Act charge. The court also ordered the destruction of any drugs seized during the search.

Orders