R v Lavrent - [2018] NZHC 229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2012-004-9674

[2018] NZHC 229

THE QUEEN

v

ANDREW GEORGE LAVRENT

Hearing: 23 February 2018

Appearances:

B Northwood for Crown

S J Bonnar QC for Defendant

Judgment:

23 February 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF VAN BOHEMEN J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland Counsel:
S J Bonnar QC, Auckland

R v LAVRENT [2018] NZHC 229 [23 February 2018]

Introduction

[1]Andrew George Lavrent, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to:

(a)One representative charge of selling a Class C controlled drug analogue, 4-MEC;1

(b)Four charges of importing a Class C controlled drug analogue;2 and

(c)One charge of possessing a Class C controlled drug analogue for sale.3

[2] These charges arise from two police investigations into the importation and supply of Class C controlled drug analogues, Operation Ark and Operation Greenstone. The representative charge of selling arises from events during Operation Ark, and the importing and possession for sale charges arise out of Operation Greenstone.

[3] You are currently serving a sentence of eight years and six months’ imprisonment imposed on 27 February 2015 by Woodhouse J following your convictions in August 2014 for other charges arising out of Operation Ark, namely: two counts of importing a Class C controlled drug analogue, eleven counts of selling a Class C controlled drug analogue, and one count of possessing a Class C controlled drug for sale.4

The facts of the present offending

[4] Operation Ark commenced in late 2010 following a large-scale seizure of tablets containing the controlled drug analogue 4-MEC (intended to mimic the effects of ecstasy). The operation investigated London Underground, a business involved in marketing and distributing legal highs and also the sale of products including pills containing 4-MEC on the so-called “after-market”. Operation Ark terminated on 16 November 2011. You, among others, were arrested and charged.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(e) and 6(2)(c): maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment.
2      Sections 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(c): maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment
3      Sections 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(c): maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment
4      R v C [2015] NZHC 317 at [58]–[63].

[5] Your primary role within London Underground was providing an apparently legitimate address for the importation and receipt of raw powders by virtue of your role as a scientist employed at a cosmetics manufacturer. You on-delivered these substances on the instructions of London Underground’s senior members, Christopher Chase and Johnny Be Good. As I have said, you are serving a sentence for your offending in connection with London Underground.

[6] The offending for which you are to be sentenced today is separate but contemporaneous to your involvement in London Underground. The investigation in Operation Ark revealed that you developed your own channels for the sale of pills between 31 August 2011 and 16 November 2011. Your associate, Jeremy Kerr, pressed the powder into pills, and you supplied the pills to Rangimarie Kemp at your home address for Mr Kemp to sell. You and…

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 Lavrent

Details

AGLC: R v Lavrent [2018] NZHC 229
Case: [2018] NZHC 229
Decision Date: 23 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the defendant, Andrew George Lavrent, was sentenced for his involvement in the importation and supply of Class C controlled drug analogues. Lavrent pleaded guilty to one charge of selling, four charges of importing, and one charge of possessing a Class C controlled drug analogue for sale. The charges stem from two police investigations, Operation Ark and Operation Greenstone. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, particularly holding Lavrent accountable for the harm done to the community, promoting a sense of responsibility and acknowledgement of that harm, and denouncing his conduct to deter others.

The legal issues the court had to decide were the appropriate starting point for the sentence and whether it should be adjusted based on Lavrent's personal circumstances, including his efforts towards rehabilitation and remorse. The Crown argued for a global starting point of four years and six months’ imprisonment, referencing previous cases and the seriousness of Lavrent's offending. In contrast, Lavrent's counsel submitted that no separate uplift should be imposed for the Operation Ark offending, and a starting point of three years would be appropriate for the Operation Greenstone offending.

The court found that Lavrent's Operation Greenstone offending was small-scale commercial and adopted a starting point of three years and five months' imprisonment, including an uplift for committing the offence while on bail. For the Operation Ark representative selling charge, the court added an uplift of ten months to the starting point for the Operation Greenstone offending, resulting in a combined starting point of four years and three months’ imprisonment. After considering Lavrent's efforts towards rehabilitation, remorse, and previous good character, the court applied a discount of 8 months, reducing the sentence to three years and seven months’ imprisonment. The court also applied a 25% discount for the guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of two years and eight months’ imprisonment. The court considered the totality of the sentence to avoid disproportionality and decided on a cumulative sentence of 14 months' imprisonment on top of Lavrent's current sentence.

Orders