R v King - [2022] NZHC 85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-004668

[2022] NZHC 85

THE QUEEN

v

NEVILLE KING

Hearing: 3 February 2022

Appearances:

D Young for the Crown C Tuck for the Defendant

Judgment:

3 February 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Hamilton Counsel: C Tuck, Auckland

R v NEVILLE KING [2022] NZHC 85 [3 February 2022]

Introduction

[1]Mr King, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand.

[2] Mr King, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(a)supplying methamphetamine.1 This is an offence pursuant to s 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the maximum penalty is one of life imprisonment;

(b)offering to supply methamphetamine.2 This is also an offence pursuant to s 6(1)(c) and, again, the maximum penalty is one of life imprisonment;

(c)possession of methamphetamine for supply. This is an offence pursuant to s 6(1)(f) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the maximum penalty is also one of life imprisonment;

(d)unlawful possession of a pistol. This is an offence pursuant to s 50(1)(a) of the Arms Act 1983 and the maximum penalty is one of three years’ imprisonment and/or a fine; and

(e)unlawful possession of an explosive. This is an offence pursuant to s 45(1)(b) of the Arms Act and the maximum penalty is one of four years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.

[3] The charges were laid against you in October 2020. You were charged along with a number of co-defendants.

[4] On 27 September 2021 Lang J gave you a sentence indication.3 He indicated that a starting point of eight years and nine months’ imprisonment would be

1      Representative charge.
2      Representative charge.
3      R v King [2021] NZHC 2539.

appropriate for your methamphetamine related offending, with an uplift of nine months’ imprisonment for your Arms Act offending.

[5] At the time you were also facing charges of participating in an organised criminal group and of theft. The sentence indication did not include an uplift for the alleged theft. Nor was there a discrete uplift for the alleged participation in an organised criminal group.

[6] You accepted the sentence indication and entered guilty pleas to the drugs and Arms Act charges on 12 October 2021. You did not enter pleas to the charges of participating in an organised criminal group and theft. The Crown has advised that it does not intend to offer any evidence on these two charges and I have today discharged you in relation to them.

Relevant facts

[7] The summary of facts which you accepted at the time you entered your guilty pleas records that, in July 2020, police commenced an investigation targeting individuals involved in the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine within the Waikato region. The investigation was code named Operation Gulfport. Your involvement in the distribution of methamphetamine was uncovered as a result of intercepted communications obtained by police during the operation.

[8] These communications showed that you…

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 King

Details

AGLC: R v King [2022] NZHC 85
Case: [2022] NZHC 85
Decision Date: 3 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v King was heard in the High Court of New Zealand in Hamilton. The defendant, Neville King, pleaded guilty to multiple charges including the supply, offering to supply, and possession of methamphetamine, as well as the unlawful possession of a pistol and an explosive. The court had before it a sentence indication from Lang J, which suggested a starting point of eight years and nine months' imprisonment for the methamphetamine related charges, with an additional nine months for the unlawful possession of the pistol and explosive. King's counsel argued for a lesser starting point, considering King's role in the criminal enterprise, and submitted that a discount for guilty pleas, remorse, rehabilitative efforts, and factors outlined in a s 27 report should apply.

The court found that the sentence indication was appropriate and agreed with the suggested starting point. Wylie J considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including the need for accountability, deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation. The court allowed discounts for the guilty pleas, remorse, rehabilitative efforts, and factors from the s 27 report, resulting in a final sentence of five years and eight months' imprisonment to be served concurrently for all charges, along with an order for the forfeiture of cash and destruction of drugs and other items used in the commission of the offending.

Orders