R v Kekesi - [2016] NZHC 1872

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2015-019-6211 [2016] NZHC 1872

THE QUEEN

v

MATTHEW SANDOR KEKESI

Hearing: 12 August 2016

Counsel:

J N Foster for Crown
R Laybourne for Defendant

Judgment:

12 August 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Counsel:
R Laybourn, Hamilton

R v KEKESI [2016] NZHC 1872 [12 August 2016]

[1] Matthew Sandor Kekesi, you appear for sentence today on one charge of supplying the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine, one of offering it for sale, one of cultivating a Class C controlled drug cannabis and one of possessing a restricted weapon, namely a taser. You entered pleas of guilty promptly following a sentence indication on 13 April 2016.1 As a result, the maximum credit for the guilty pleas will be given in accordance with the indication that I gave to you earlier.

[2] When I provided the sentence indication, I summarised briefly your offending. As this is a public process I need to repeat that now.

[3] Your offending was identified as a result of a covert Police operation known as Operation Daydream. It involved the investigation of alleged drug offending in rural areas surrounding Te Aroha and Paeroa. The investigation began in August
2015 and was terminated on 4 November 2015. Nevertheless, the charges cover a period between 1 January 2015 and 4 November 2015.

[4] The Crown position is that you were a close associate of [Mr X], the person who is alleged to have been the prime mover of the drug dealing business uncovered as a result of the Police operation. Ms Foster, for the Crown, has identified three essential elements of that offending:

(a) The first is participating in what I will call [Mr X’s] group. There is evidence that you acted as a driver and a courier and actively assisted [Mr X] to make money from his operation.

(b)Secondly, you embarked upon the independent supply of methamphetamine. You admitted to the Police that you averaged one to two grams of methamphetamine being sold per week.

(c) The third is your involvement in a cannabis growing operation which was undertaken separately and on your own behalf. The information gathered by the Police revealed 32 occasions on which you organised transactions resulting in the actual supply of methamphetamine. On

23 of those occasions, the Police were able to identify supply totalling

38.6 grams. In addition, you used a telephone to offer to supply methamphetamine on 16 occasions. On nine of those the amount involved totalled 17.65 grams.

[5] When a search warrant was executed on termination, a set of electronic scales and a taser were located. Possession of the taser is particularly serious; often weapons of that type are held to protect the product being sold.

[6] So far as the cannabis operation was concerned, you had an indoor room in which cannabis was grown. It is clear that it was used for more than one harvest. It appears that the transactions organised for…

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 Kekesi

Details

AGLC: R v Kekesi [2016] NZHC 1872
Case: [2016] NZHC 1872
Decision Date: 12 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Kekesi, Matthew Sandor Kekesi was sentenced for supplying and offering to sell methamphetamine, cultivating cannabis, and possessing a restricted weapon. Kekesi entered guilty pleas following a sentence indication. The court found that Kekesi was a close associate of Mr X, the prime mover of the drug dealing operation uncovered during Operation Daydream. Kekesi's role included acting as a driver, courier, and independent supplier of methamphetamine. The court noted that Kekesi had organised transactions resulting in the supply of methamphetamine and was involved in a cannabis growing operation. A taser was also found during a search warrant execution.

The legal issues in this case included determining an appropriate sentence for Kekesi's drug-related offences and possession of a restricted weapon. The court considered Kekesi's early guilty pleas, his participation in the Higher Ground rehabilitation programme, and his desire to rehabilitate himself. The court also acknowledged Kekesi's addiction to illicit drugs and the impact it had on his actions. However, the court was constrained by legislation, which required a sentence of imprisonment for serious drug offences.

The court sentenced Kekesi to two years and six months imprisonment, with credit given for his early guilty pleas and participation in the rehabilitation programme. The court recommended that Kekesi continue his rehabilitative work during his imprisonment and avoid criminal associates in the future. The court also made an order for the destruction of drug-related paraphernalia and the restricted weapon seized during the police operation. Lastly, the court suppressed information that could identify Mr X in connection with the offences for which Kekesi was convicted.

In summary, the court sentenced Matthew Sandor Kekesi to two years and six months imprisonment for his involvement in drug-related offences and possession of a restricted weapon. The court took into account Kekesi's early guilty pleas, participation in a rehabilitation programme, and his desire to rehabilitate himself. The court also acknowledged the impact of Kekesi's addiction on his actions but was constrained by legislation, which required a sentence of imprisonment for serious drug offences. The court recommended that Kekesi continue his rehabilitative work during his imprisonment and avoid criminal associates in the future.

Orders