R v Jethwa - [2012] NZHC 2440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-019-003439 [2012] NZHC 2440

THE QUEEN

v

CHETAN VIRAJ JETHWA

Charges: Importing a Class C controlled drug x2;
selling a Class C controlled drug x2;
possession for supply of a Class C controlled drug x2;
importing prescription medicines without reasonable excuse x3; possession of prescription medicines without reasonable excuse x2; manufacturing medicines without a licence x1

Plea: Guilty

Appearances: S Cameron for Crown
P J Morgan QC for Prisoner

Sentenced: 20 September 2012
Importing Class C controlled drug, selling the Class C controlled drug and possession and supply of the Class C controlled drug – 12 months home detention;
importing prescription medicines, possession of prescription medicines and manufacturing of prescription medicines – one month home detention concurrent
300 hours of community work

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Copy to: P Morgan QC, Hamilton

R V JETHWA HC HAM CRI-2012-019-003439 [20 September 2012]

[1] Chetan Viraj Jethwa, you have pleaded guilty to and are for sentence in this Court on two counts of importing a Class C controlled drug, two counts of selling a Class C controlled drug, two counts of possession for supply of a Class C controlled drug, three counts of importing prescription medicines without reasonable excuse, two counts of possession of prescription medicines without reasonable excuse and one count of manufacturing medicines without a licence. The maximum penalty for the most serious offending in relation to the class C drug is eight years’ imprisonment.

[2] Stated briefly the offending is that in December 2011 you imported a small single punch tablet press and then from January 2012 you began importing 4-methyl- N-ethylcathinone, also known as 4-MEC and Methylenedioxypyrovalerone, more commonly known as MDPV. Both are Class C controlled drugs. You sourced the 4- MEC and MDPV through several overseas suppliers and used the express mail service to import the illegal drugs into New Zealand. You sourced them through drug supply websites, paying approximately US$2,000 a kilogram for the 4-MEC and MDPV.

[3] Between 5 April 2012 and 16 May 2012 New Zealand Customs intercepted nine packages that you had imported into New Zealand. The packages were imported using false identities. All of this arose because of your relationship with a Mr Musson. You and Mr Musson assumed code names and false identities. You and Mr Musson formulated a business structure that covered the importation, preparation of the pills, supply to customers and incidental storage. Once you had made the pills using the press you sent bulk quantities of them to Mr Musson, who was based in Christchurch. The pills were then on-sold to customers. For each kilogram of 4- MEC sourced you made a profit of approximately $24,000. At the peak of the operation you and Mr Musson were selling $55,000 worth of pills a week.

[4] On 22 May 2012 the Police and New Zealand Customs executed search warrants at your home, the storage unit you used in Hamilton and your car. The police…

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 Jethwa

Details

AGLC: R v Jethwa [2012] NZHC 2440
Case: [2012] NZHC 2440
Decision Date: 20 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Chetan Viraj Jethwa involves charges related to drug importation, possession, and manufacturing. Jethwa pleaded guilty to multiple counts, including importing and selling Class C controlled drugs, possessing and supplying these drugs, importing and possessing prescription medicines without reasonable excuse, and manufacturing medicines without a licence. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that adheres to the Sentencing Act's principles and purposes, while also considering the specific circumstances of the case. The court needed to balance the need to denounce the illegal activities, deter future offences, and promote Jethwa's rehabilitation, alongside holding him accountable for the harm caused.

The court began by assessing the seriousness of the offences and Jethwa's culpability. It recognised the sophistication and scale of the drug operation, which involved substantial financial gains and multiple transactions. However, it also considered mitigating factors, such as Jethwa's age, lack of prior convictions, and his genuine remorse. The influence of his relationship with another individual, Mr. Musson, was noted as a significant factor in the offending. The court applied a reduction to the starting sentence point, reflecting these mitigating aspects and Jethwa's cooperation with authorities.

Ultimately, the court sentenced Jethwa to 12 months of home detention for the drug-related charges and one month of home detention for the medicine-related charges, to be served concurrently. Additionally, Jethwa was ordered to complete 300 hours of community work. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration into society, highlighting that Jethwa was given a chance to avoid imprisonment. The sentence also included forfeiture orders for drug-related paraphernalia and seized cash, underscoring the seriousness of the offences and the need for accountability.

Orders