R v Lloyd - [2014] NZHC 1373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-092-000226 [2014] NZHC 1373

THE QUEEN

v

TANIA MARIE LLOYD MARIO INES RUBIN

Hearing: 13 June 2014

Counsel:

B Finn for the Crown
R Thomson for defendant Lloyd
D Bell for defendant Rubin

Judgment:

13 June 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF ASHER J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland.
R Thomson, Auckland. D Bell, Auckland.

R v LLOYD & RUBIN [2014] NZHC 1373 [13 June 2014]

[1] Today I am to sentence Mario Rubin and Tania Lloyd. Mario Rubin has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine. Ms Lloyd has pleaded guilty to one count of supplying methamphetamine.

[2] The charges arise out of a Police inquiry known as Operation Trixie. There are three other persons who have pleaded guilty in relation to Operation Trixie, Messrs Tatana, Wensor and Nimot. They face more serious charges than those faced by Mr Rubin and Ms Lloyd. Their sentencing has been adjourned today because of disagreement on matters of fact that may have to be resolved by a disputed facts hearing.

[3] Although it would have been convenient to have sentenced all the defendants together I am prepared to sentence Mr Rubin and Ms Lloyd today. They both wish to be sentenced. Their supporters are here. There is no particular dispute about their role and the points of distinction between their relatively minor involvement and the involvement alleged in relation to the other defendants.

[4] The summary of facts states that Darin Tatana, who at the time was Ms Lloyd’s partner, was manufacturing methamphetamine. Prior to Mr Tatana being released from prison, Mr Wensor had set up a potential methamphetamine manufacturing ring to be operated with Mr Tatana.

[5] Mr Rubin was an associate of, it would seem, Mr Wensor. The summary of facts says that he would occasionally visit Mr Wensor’s premises. It also says that he had a close connection with the other defendants. Text messages showed that Mr Rubin assisted in the manufacture of methamphetamine in a minor way. He visited the workshop, assisted in getting iodine on one occasion and had some involvement in trafficking of the drug. He assisted in the manufacture of methamphetamine on at least one occasion. In another text he said that he was going to bring a “big sack” of methamphetamine home with him although there is no evidence that he did so.

[6] Mr Finn for the Crown described his involvement as “a hanger on” and I

consider that description to be accurate. He clearly had a methamphetamine habit

and such rewards as he got for his help were in methamphetamine and not in money. The Crown does not suggest that he profited from his assistance by any payments other than by methamphetamine.

Sentencing of Mr Rubin

[7] In sentencing Mr Rubin I am mindful of the four sentencing bands set out in R v Fatu1 and the observation in R v Te Rure that conspiracy involves less criminality.2

[8] The Crown suggest…

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 Lloyd

Details

AGLC: R v Lloyd [2014] NZHC 1373
Case: [2014] NZHC 1373
Decision Date: 13 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mario Rubin and Tania Lloyd were sentenced for their involvement in a methamphetamine conspiracy and supply, respectively. Rubin pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine, while Lloyd pleaded guilty to supplying the drug. Both defendants were part of a larger drug ring, with other individuals facing more severe charges. Rubin's role was minor, mainly assisting in the manufacturing process and trafficking, while Lloyd was involved in smaller-scale drug dealing transactions to support her methamphetamine habit and maintain her relationship with the primary manufacturer. The court considered various factors, such as the defendants' backgrounds, remorse, and efforts to rehabilitate, in determining their sentences.

The legal issues addressed in this case involved the appropriate sentencing for Rubin and Lloyd, taking into account their level of involvement, personal circumstances, and the benefits of rehabilitation and home detention. The court referenced previous cases and sentencing guidelines to establish the appropriate starting points for both defendants and then applied discounts for their early guilty pleas, remorse, and rehabilitation efforts.

The court ultimately decided to sentence Rubin and Lloyd to home detention, considering their low-level involvement and potential for rehabilitation. Rubin received an 11-month home detention sentence, while Lloyd was sentenced to 10 months. The court believed that both defendants had the potential to reintegrate into the community and become positive members of their respective families, and that home detention would provide the best opportunity for their rehabilitation and reintegration.

The final orders of the court were for Rubin and Lloyd to serve their respective home detention sentences, with specific conditions in place to ensure their compliance and continued rehabilitation efforts.

Orders