R v Lia - [2016] NZHC 2157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-004-005841 [2016] NZHC 2157

THE QUEEN

v

KET CHUN LIA

Hearing: 13 September 2016

Appearances:

K C Chang for Crown
P F Wicks QC for Prisoner

Judgment:

13 September 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PALMER J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland
P F Wicks QC, Auckland

R v LIA [2016] NZHC 2157 [13 September 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Ket Chun Lia, on 27 July 2016 you were convicted by a unanimous jury, under s 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, of supplying the class A drug methamphetamine.

[2] Methamphetamine was reclassified as a class A drug in New Zealand in 2003 to reflect its very high risk of harm. The Health Select Committee of the House of Representatives which reviewed the order noted that methamphetamine “appeals to vulnerable populations, has a high physical and psychological dependence potential, and can lead to long-term adverse physical and psychological effects.”1 It had been linked to deaths and poses significant risk to public health. Its classification was said by the Committee to “serve as a signal that methamphetamine is one of the most dangerous of drugs”. Those dealing in methamphetamine are causing human misery.

[3] Classification of methamphetamine as a class A drug means the maximum sentence that may be imposed is life imprisonment. Parliament has decided there must be a presumption that a person convicted of supplying methamphetamine will receive a sentence of imprisonment.2 I now have to decide what sentence should be imposed for your conviction.

Facts

[4] You were convicted of supplying 54.2 grams of methamphetamine to

Mr Ryan McLaren for $9,500 on 3 April 2015.

[5] Mr McLaren pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, supplying 19.15 grams of methamphetamine over 29 instances between 1 August 2014 and 3 April 2015. The quantities ranged between 0.25 and 2.5 grams. He also pleaded guilty to possession for supply of the 54.2 grams he acquired from you. Mr McLaren is a street level dealer – a retailer. Your supplying of 54.2 grams was more at the wholesale level.

1 Health Committee Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2003 (April 2003) at
3.
2 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(4)(a).

[6] The Police intercepted Mr McLaren’s phone conversations. There were a number of telephone calls between you and him on 2 and 3 April 2015, some of which used code common in drug dealing. The content of those calls suggests Mr McLaren negotiated to buy methamphetamine from you for $9,500. The Police followed him. They watched him meet you around 8.45 pm in a Nando’s restaurant, in a carpark in Albany, Auckland. You met him, then left. At 9.30 pm you returned to the same place, where Mr McLaren had stayed. You had a further brief interaction and then you both left. The Police arrested Mr McLaren when he got home and found two packages of methamphetamine on him.

[7] The jury decided that you gave the packages of methamphetamine to…

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 Lia

Details

AGLC: R v Lia [2016] NZHC 2157
Case: [2016] NZHC 2157
Decision Date: 13 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ket Chun Lia was convicted of supplying 54.2 grams of methamphetamine to Ryan McLaren for $9,500 on 3 April 2015. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for the conviction. The legal issues the court was required to decide included setting an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering the personal circumstances of the offender, and adjusting the starting point based on any aggravating or mitigating factors. The court determined that an appropriate starting point was imprisonment for four years and nine months, taking into account the wholesale level of methamphetamine supplied, the commercial nature of the drug dealing, and the lack of evidence of a particularly sophisticated operation. The court also considered the offender's personal circumstances, including his previous convictions and character references, and determined that there were no aggravating factors personal to the offender that warranted any uplift to the sentence. However, the court did agree to a modest discount for the restrictive bail conditions the offender had experienced. Ultimately, the court sentenced Ket Chun Lia to imprisonment for four years and six months, with eligibility for parole after serving a third of his sentence. The court also recommended that upon release, the offender attend drug and gambling assessment programmes.

Orders