R v Keogh - [2016] NZHC 508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2014-088-003309 [2016] NZHC 508

THE QUEEN

v

SHARN STANLEY KEOGH

Hearing: 23 March 2016

Appearances:

Michael Smith for the Crown
Chris Muston for the Defendant

Judgment:

23 March 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v KEOGH [2016] NZHC 508 [23 March 2016]

Introduction

[1] Sharn Stanley Keogh you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to five charges. Four are brought under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and one under the Crimes Act 1961.

[2] Under the Misuse of Drugs Act there are two charges of manufacturing the class A controlled drug methamphetamine1 and two charges of conspiring to supply methamphetamine2. The charge of participating in an organised criminal group3 is brought under s 98A of the Crimes Act. The lead charge of manufacturing carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

[3] On 16 December 2015 I gave you a sentence indication. I indicated that in the event you were to plead guilty to these charges I would sentence you to a term of imprisonment of eight years and six months’ imprisonment. You accepted that indication. Although I gave brief reasons for reaching such a sentence then I am now required to record those reasons more fully as part of this formal sentencing process.

Factual background

[4] In July 2014 the Organised & Financial Crime Agency New Zealand commenced a covert electronic investigation into the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine in Northland by a syndicate of patched members of the Head Hunters Motorcycle Gang. The investigation was code named “Taskforce Easter”.

[5] In September 2014 a covert video camera was installed to monitor the activities of those coming and going from an address at 278 Taipuha Road, Waiotira,
Northland. Waiotira is an isolated rural area about 30 kms southwest of Whangarei.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(b).
2      Section 6(2A).
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.

[6] The investigation revealed the address was not occupied on a full-time basis. Instead, it was used as a sophisticated clandestine laboratory which manufactured large quantities of methamphetamine.

[7] From the Police’s observations and the evidence collected through the covert phase, it was revealed that methamphetamine was manufactured at the address on six separate occasions over a three month period between September and December
2014.

[8] It was not until mid-October that an audio device was installed at the address. The intercepted communications which followed revealed methamphetamine was manufactured on three occasions over the period of the installation. The quantities
produced on each occasion were massive as can be seen by the table below:

Date
Quantities

23 October 2014

2,545 grams

28 to 31 October 2014

1,900 grams

6 to 14 November 2014

2,800 grams

[9] You have pleaded guilty to manufacturing activity which took place before the interception device was installed. Those manufactures took place twice between
30 September 2014 and 1 October 2014 and between 8 and 9 October 2014.

[10] The evidence is that on…

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 [2016] NZHC 508
Case: [2016] NZHC 508
Decision Date: 23 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sharn Stanley Keogh has pleaded guilty to five charges, including manufacturing and conspiring to supply methamphetamine, and participating in an organised criminal group. The court must decide the appropriate sentence for these offences, considering the purposes and principles of sentencing, particularly denunciation and deterrence of commercial drug dealing. The court must also consider Keogh's role in the offending, his previous convictions, and his guilty plea.

The court determined that the manufacturing charges were the most serious, and set a starting point of 11 years' imprisonment, reflecting Keogh's role as a secondary participant in the drug manufacturing and distribution operation. The court also considered Keogh's previous convictions and guilty plea, imposing an uplift of three months and a discount of 20% respectively. The final sentence was reduced by eight months to reflect the totality principle, resulting in a sentence of eight years and six months' imprisonment for the manufacturing charges, 18 months for the conspiracy charges, and six months for participating in an organised criminal group, to be served concurrently.

The court emphasised the need for Keogh to address his methamphetamine addiction and distance himself from the influences that led to his offending. The court acknowledged Keogh's expressions of commitment to change and his willingness to take responsibility for his actions. The court also noted the support Keogh has from his family and former employer, and encouraged him to make the most of this support during his sentence.

The final orders of the court are that Keogh is sentenced to eight years and six months' imprisonment for the manufacturing charges, 18 months for the conspiracy charges, and six months for participating in an organised criminal group, to be served concurrently. The court also encourages Keogh to participate in rehabilitation programmes during his sentence, which may assist the Parole Board when considering his eligibility for release.

Orders