R v Kayrouz - [2013] NZHC 799

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2010-019-2006 [2013] NZHC 799

THE QUEEN

v

SIMON LINDSAY KAYROUZ

Appearances: J Foster for the Crown
P G Mabey QC for the Prisoner

Sentence: 18 April 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF PRIESTLEY J

Counsel:
J N Foster, Crown Solicitor, Hamilton. Email: jnf@almaodouch.co.nz
P G Mabey QC, Barrister, Tauranga. Email: pgmabey@xtra.co.nz

R V KAYROUZ HC HAM CRI-2010-019-2006 [18 April 2013]

[1] Simon Lindsay Kayrouz, you are being sentenced today on five counts on which a jury found you guilty at the end of a lengthy trial in December 2012. The counts are manufacturing methamphetamine, supplying methamphetamine, possession of precursor substances and possession of equipment and material, all under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The fifth count is a charge of unlawful possession of three pistols under the Arms Act.

[2] As you know the manufacturing and supply of methamphetamine charges carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Arms Act charge carries a maximum of four years imprisonment. The two counts of possession of precursor substances and equipment carry maximums of five years imprisonment.

[3] In a conventional sentencing minute I would at this stage set out my view of the facts. Because of the complexity of the trial and your offending that is not easy to do. So for while I am going to range fairly widely and touch on some points which will feed into the sentence I intend to craft for you.

[4] Mr Kayrouz, it is not easy for me to pin down with any precision the basis on which I should sentence you. First, you maintain that you are innocent and should not have been convicted. As you know, however, the jury’s five verdicts bind both of us. Whether you were properly convicted is a matter for the Court of Appeal if you choose to go there. But your stance takes away certain credits which might otherwise have been available to you.

[5] Secondly, as was your right, you kept your mouth shut throughout. You admitted nothing to the police other than a few comments which cast doubt on your knowledge and expertise as a farm employee. You did not give evidence, which innocent people, although they are not obliged so to do, frequently do. You have not instructed your counsel to place distance between yourself and the much more culpable king pin, Stephen Gray. However, Mr Mabey is correct, and I accept his submission, that because you were clearly below Mr Gray in a hierarchical sense,
your culpability is less. The Court of Appeal in R v Fatu1 has observed that a

1 R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 at [43].

sentence must reflect not only drug quantities but also the role of a particular offender in a manufacturing ring.

[6] Thirdly, the Crown case against you was entirely circumstantial. Various intercepted conversations by others implicated you. There was one single word text from you at a crucial time which linked you to the…

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 Kayrouz

Details

AGLC: R v Kayrouz [2013] NZHC 799
Case: [2013] NZHC 799
Decision Date: 18 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simon Lindsay Kayrouz has been sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand for multiple drug-related charges, including manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine, and possession of precursor substances, equipment, and firearms. The court considered the complexity of the case, the role Kayrouz played in the drug operation, and the absence of direct evidence against him, leading to a detailed examination of his involvement and culpability.

The court had to determine Kayrouz's role within the drug manufacturing and supply chain, his level of culpability, and the appropriate sentence considering his lesser role compared to the main offender, Stephen Gray. The court also needed to address whether a minimum term of imprisonment should be imposed under the Sentencing Act, given the unique circumstances of Kayrouz’s case.

Kayrouz maintained his innocence and refused to admit any guilt, which impacted the potential credits available for sentencing. The court acknowledged that while Kayrouz played a significant role as a methamphetamine cook, his culpability was less than Gray's due to his lower hierarchical position. The court found the jury's verdicts to be correct, despite the circumstantial nature of the evidence. The court concluded that Kayrouz manufactured approximately 60 ounces of methamphetamine, supplied to Gray, and was involved in the possession of precursor substances and firearms.

The court sentenced Kayrouz to 16½ years imprisonment on the manufacturing charge, 13 years for supplying methamphetamine, four years for possession of equipment and materials, and 12 months for unlawful possession of pistols. These sentences are to be served concurrently, and the court decided not to impose a minimum term of imprisonment. The decision balanced the need for deterrence and denunciation against the specific circumstances of Kayrouz’s involvement and his lesser role in the drug operation.

Orders