R v Jones - [2016] NZHC 424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2015-063-2651 [2016] NZHC 424

THE QUEEN

v

JAMES ALLAN JONES

Charges:
Plea:

Possession of methamphetamine for supply;

Possession of cannabis for sale

Guilty

Counsel:

N Tahana for Crown
M J Hine for Prisoner

Sentenced:

14 March 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors: Gordon Pilditch (Rotorua) for Crown
Families Matter Law Practice Ltd (Rotorua) for Prisoner

R v JONES [2016] NZHC 424 [14 March 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Jones, you have pleaded guilty to charges of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply and possessing cannabis for the purpose of sale.1 The maximum sentences for those charges are life imprisonment and eight years’ imprisonment respectively.

[2] You sought a sentence indication. On 15 December 2015, Lang J indicated that your offending justified a starting point of four years’ imprisonment.2 His Honour reduced the starting point to three years six months’ imprisonment to take account of the mitigating and aggravating factors of the offending. Justice Lang noted that further discounts might be available for your personal factors. It depended on the pre-sentence report and what else could be put before the Court on your behalf. However, it was made clear that these factors could not reduce the
sentence to one which would make home detention an option.

[3] Mr Jones, you accepted the sentence indication and pleaded guilty on

3 February 2016. Because I did not give the sentence indication, I am not bound by it. But I agree with it and so I will sentence you accordingly.

Facts

[4] I will summarise the facts, very briefly, for the record.

[5] The charges you face were laid as a result of a Police operation targeting another person in the Bay of Plenty region. That person was identified as a central and dominant figure in the commercial scale distribution of methamphetamine throughout the North Island.

[6] The Police discovered, through interception of text communications, that you were seeking a meeting with this person. You met the person in a bar in Tauranga on
the evening of 3 June 2015.

1 Both charges fall under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f).
2 R v Jones [2015] NZHC 3213.

[7] Later that evening, you drove towards Rotorua. You were stopped by Police whilst returning on the Tauranga Direct Road. The Police searched your vehicle. They found two small black pouches concealed within the roof lining of the car. One of these contained 28 grams of methamphetamine, and the other contained
76 grams of dried cannabis head material.

[8] The black pouch containing the 28 grams of methamphetamine also had three empty small unused snaplock bags. These were consistent with the size of bag commonly used to sell methamphetamine in one gram lots. The cannabis was contained in two separate bags, each of which contained 28 grams of cannabis, and six further bags, each of which contained a cannabis bud.

Sentence calculation

[9] Justice Lang told you during the sentence indication hearing how…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2016] NZHC 424
Case: [2016] NZHC 424
Decision Date: 14 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, James Allan Jones was sentenced for his guilty plea to charges of possessing methamphetamine for supply and possessing cannabis for sale. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for these drug-related offences, which carry maximum penalties of life imprisonment and eight years’ imprisonment, respectively. The case began with a sentence indication by Lang J, which suggested a starting point of four years’ imprisonment, later reduced to three years six months’ imprisonment, acknowledging both mitigating and aggravating factors. Jones accepted this indication and pleaded guilty, leading to the sentencing by Brewer J.

The legal issues primarily revolved around the appropriate starting point for sentencing and whether any mitigating factors should further reduce the sentence. Brewer J reviewed the mitigating factors presented, including Jones's acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and insight into his drug addiction. The court also considered the uplift for the cannabis charge and the discount for Jones's early guilty plea. Brewer J concluded that Jones's personal circumstances warranted an additional reduction in his sentence to encourage rehabilitation.

Brewer J decided to reduce the starting point by eight per cent, bringing it to four years three-and-a-half months' imprisonment, and further reduced it by 25 per cent for the guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of three years three months’ imprisonment for the methamphetamine charge. For the cannabis charge, Jones was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the first sentence. Thus, Jones was sentenced to a total of three years three months’ imprisonment.

Orders