R v Keogh - [2021] NZHC 2677

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-063-3188

[2021] NZHC 2677

THE QUEEN

v

DENA ROSE KEOGH

Hearing: 7 October 2021

Appearances:

S J Bird for the Crown

W T Nabney for the Defendant (who appeared via VMR from Grace Foundation)

Sentencing:

7 October 2021

SENTENCE OF GAULT J

Solicitors / Counsel:
Mr C H Macklin and Mr S J Bird, Gordon & Pilditch, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Rotorua Mr W T Nabney, Barrister, Tauranga

R v KEOGH [2021] NZHC 2677 [7 October 2021]

[1] Ms Keogh, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiring to supply methamphetamine,1 and one charge of conspiring to supply gamma-butyrolactone (GBL),2 following a sentence indication I gave you on 12 July 2021.3 I will annex this sentence indication to my sentencing notes.

Facts

[2]I begin by setting out the facts of your offending.

[3] Following the arrest and admissions of a commercial exporter of methamphetamine in the United States, the New Zealand Police began investigating the commercial manufacture, importation and supply of methamphetamine in the Bay of Plenty (Operation Schultz). The exporter had told Police that his New Zealand customer was a Mr MacFarlane. Police obtained a warrant to intercept Mr MacFarlane’s private communications in July 2020.

[4] Pursuant to that warrant, on 12 August 2020 between 6:40 and 7:50 pm, Police recorded a conversation at Mr MacFarlane’s Rotorua address between you, Mr MacFarlane and his partner Ms Ward. This conversation is the basis upon which you are charged with conspiring to supply GBL.

[5]Relevant excerpts of that conversation include:

Mr MacFarlane: Let’s do it. I’ve got heaps of litres here. I’ve got
about three litres here.

You: Yeah, I’ve been waiting for you…And oi straight up,
heaps of people have been ringing me for, for Waz aye in Tauranga. Like not a whole litre. Like if I was to break it down, but it’s better to just sell it in bulk aye, like in, in litres. For me it is anyway … But um like Sunset, you know Sunset? Clay’s missus. She, she wants like – And Stacey oi, he’s another one that doesn’t buy a litre.

[6] References to “Waz” are to the drug, GBL. The conversation moved on. Mr MacFarlane gave you advice on getting cash prior to sale, so that you did not end

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2A)(b). Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      R v Keogh [2021] NZHC 1745.

up chasing people “on tick”. You also explained that various people had come to your house in a car. You said:

Bro like when they first come to my house and offloaded it like there was like ten, ten fifty kg ones. Um I went back with Rayner and, coz they were, they were everywhere ow. Like the car was that heavy girl, I couldn’t move.

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 Keogh

Details

AGLC: R v Keogh [2021] NZHC 2677
Case: [2021] NZHC 2677
Decision Date: 7 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Keogh, the defendant, Dena Rose Keogh, was charged with conspiring to supply methamphetamine and gamma-butyrolactone (GBL). The legal issues before the court were the determination of an appropriate starting point for sentencing, the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the assessment of the defendant's personal circumstances, including her addiction and progress in rehabilitation. The court had to balance the purposes of sentencing, including accountability, deterrence, and rehabilitation, with the need to impose a sentence that was both just and appropriate. The court found that Keogh's addiction played a significant role in her offending and that her progress in rehabilitation warranted a substantial discount. After considering all factors, the court sentenced Keogh to four months' home detention, to be served concurrently for both charges.

The court's reasoning involved setting a starting point for the methamphetamine charge, which was reduced due to the conspiracy charge, and applying an uplift for the GBL charge. The court found no need for an uplift based on Keogh's previous convictions, which were deemed to reflect her addiction issues rather than a tendency to commit such offences. The court also granted a significant discount for Keogh's guilty plea and her progress in rehabilitation, reducing the starting point to sixteen months' imprisonment. The court concluded that home detention was the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the gravity of the offending and the importance of continuing Keogh's rehabilitation.

Orders