R v Kupkovic - [2014] NZHC 1946

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-092-005703
CRI-2012-092-011275

CRI-2012-092-005957 [2014] NZHC 1946

THE QUEEN

v

ANDREI MIKOYAN KUPKOVIC TUAN ANH HO
LEIGHTON KENNETH HOE

Charges:
Plea:

Kupkovic: Manufacturing methamphetamine (2); Supplying

methamphetamine; Possession of methamphetamine for supply; Possession of precursor substance; Possession of equipment; Possession of materials

Ho: Manufacturing methamphetamine; Supplying methamphetamine; Receiving stolen property

Hoe: Manufacturing methamphetamine

Guilty

Counsel:

JLS Shaw for Crown MA Edgar for Kupkovic PK Hamlin for Ho

AG Speed for Hoe

Sentenced:

19 August 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors/Counsel: Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Crown Mark Edgar (Auckland) for Kupkovic Philip Hamlin (Auckland) for Ho Andrew Speed (Auckland) for Hoe

R v KUPKOVIC, HO & HOE [2014] NZHC 1946 [19 August 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Kupkovic, Mr Tuan Ho and Mr Leighton Hoe, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to drug offending.

[2] Mr Kupkovic, you pleaded guilty to two counts of manufacturing methamphetamine, one being a representative count,1 one representative count of supplying methamphetamine,2 one count of possession of methamphetamine for supply,3 one count of possession of a precursor substance,4 one count of possession of equipment,5 and one count of possession of materials.6

[3] Mr Tuan Ho, you pleaded guilty to one representative count of manufacturing methamphetamine, one representative count of supplying methamphetamine and one count of receiving stolen property.

[4] Mr Leighton Hoe, you pleaded guilty to one representative count of manufacturing methamphetamine.

[5] You all, however, denied offending to the extent alleged by the Crown. I heard evidence in a disputed facts hearing in November of last year, with two days of legal submissions in March of this year. In summary, the Crown alleged 33 separate incidents of manufacturing. In many cases, one or more of you denied either that manufacturing had taken place or, if it had, you were involved. The result was that I had to go carefully through the evidence in order to reach conclusions as to your individual blameworthiness. In the end, I did not make findings at the higher end of the Crown’s allegations, but I made findings considerably higher than the levels of offending you were prepared to accept.

[6] The offending, for all of you, was significant and serious. Particularly, Mr Kupkovic, in relation to you. I set out the factual background in detail in my
judgment on the disputed facts hearing and so I will refer to it now only briefly.

1      An offence against Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(b) and 6(2)(a).
2      Sections 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a).
3      Sections 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(a).
4      Sections 12A(2)(b) and 12A(3)(b).
5      Sections 12A(2)(a) and 12A(3)(b).
6      Sections 12A(2)(a) and 12A(3)(b).

Factual background

[7] Between November 2011 and May 2012, all three of you were involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine, principally at a rural address at Berwyn Avenue in Takanini. The three of you were not always present at the property at the same time. The manufacture of methamphetamine took place in a large farm implement shed with 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 Kupkovic

Details

AGLC: R v Kupkovic [2014] NZHC 1946
Case: [2014] NZHC 1946
Decision Date: 19 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Andrei Mikoyan Kupkovic, Tuan Anh Ho, and Leighton Kenneth Hoe, were convicted of multiple drug-related offenses, including manufacturing, supplying, and possessing methamphetamine. The case involved a significant amount of methamphetamine manufactured and supplied by the defendants, primarily at a rural address in Takanini and occasionally at another property on Wallace Road. Kupkovic was identified as the ringleader, Tuan Ho as an assistant, and Leighton Hoe as having a lesser role, mainly supplying caustic soda. The court conducted a disputed facts hearing to determine the extent of each defendant's involvement. The Crown argued for high starting points and minimum periods of imprisonment based on the scale of the offenses, while the defense sought lower sentences, emphasizing the defendants' personal circumstances, remorse, and efforts towards rehabilitation. The court balanced the need for accountability and deterrence with the defendants' personal backgrounds and prospects for rehabilitation, ultimately sentencing Kupkovic to 15 years' imprisonment with a minimum of seven-and-a-half years, Tuan Ho to 12-and-a-half years, and Leighton Hoe to seven years, all sentences to be served concurrently.

Orders