R v Lockie - [2013] NZHC 1625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2011-009-014648 [2013] NZHC 1625

REGINA

v

CAMERON JOHN LOCKIE

Hearing: 26 June 2013

Counsel: K B Bell and S J Jamieson for Crown
PHB Hall QC and K H Cook for Prisoner

Judgment: 26 June 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WHATA J

Plea

[1] Mr Lockie you have pleaded guilty to one count of possessing cocaine for supply. The maximum sentence for such offending is life imprisonment.

[2] I turn then to the summary of facts to which you have pleaded guilty. I have in effect adopted the full narrative of the police to put your offending in its proper context.

Summary of facts

[3] A Mr David Nevarez flew into New Zealand from LA on 13 December 2011. A search of his suitcase located 2.985 kilograms of the Class A controlled drug
cocaine. It was 80% pure.

REGINA v LOCKIE [2013] NZHC 1625 [26 June 2013]

[4] At this time cocaine had a current potential ‘street value’ to end users of the drug of between $250 and $400 dollars per gram. Therefore the total amount of cocaine would have had a street value of between $746,250 and $1,194,000.

[5] Mr Nevarez agreed to assist the police with their enquiries. Mr Nevarez stated that he was under instructions to email a JJ once he had checked in to a motor lodge. He did this, and began an MSN Messenger conversation with a male who called himself Raoul.

[6] Between 13 and 16 December 2011 Mr Nevarez exchanged messages using email and was advised that someone would be coming to his room. During the exchanges Mr Nevarez advised Raoul of his room number.

[7] On Thursday 14 December 2011 you rang Daniel McGannan, who at this time resided in London, England, and conversed for about 24 minutes. During this conversation, the fact that the cocaine was present in New Zealand was discussed. You in turn discussed this with a Mr Brendan Clarke, who expressed an interest in receiving the cocaine.

[8] On the same night, you sent a text message to Mr McGannan which stated

“Let’s talk, call when ya walk up, I’ve got funding”.

[9] As a favour to Mr McGannan, you proceeded to facilitate the transaction acting as a contact between Mr McGannan and Mr Clarke. Following this there were numerous telephone calls and text messages between Mr McGannan and you which were about arranging the sale of the cocaine.

[10] In the early hours of 16 December, Mr McGannan contacted Samantha Gemmell, who was a long time friend, and asked if she could do him a big favour because “someone had shit on” him. Arrangements were made for her to meet up with Mr Nevarez. On 16 December 2011, police covert surveillance observed Samantha Gemmell arrive at Mr Nevarez’s motor lodge. She spoke to Mr Nevarez and was together with him for approximately 44 minutes.

[11] Their conversation was monitored by police and during the conversation, Ms Gemmell told…

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 Lockie

Details

AGLC: R v Lockie [2013] NZHC 1625
Case: [2013] NZHC 1625
Decision Date: 26 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cameron John Lockie was charged with possession of cocaine for supply. He pleaded guilty to the charge and the case proceeded to sentencing. The legal issues before the court were determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering Lockie's role in the drug supply chain, and assessing the mitigating factors that could reduce his sentence. The court considered the amount of cocaine involved, Lockie's role as a facilitator, and his personal circumstances including his family situation and genuine remorse. The Crown argued for an eight-year starting point based on the comparison to co-offenders and Lockie's lower culpability compared to the primary suppliers. The defence submitted that Lockie should receive a significant discount for his guilty plea and mitigating factors. After considering the arguments, the court determined a starting point of six years and applied a 65% discount for mitigating factors and a guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of two years and one month imprisonment.

The court acknowledged Lockie's otherwise unblemished character and the mitigating factors but held that only a term of imprisonment could properly serve the purposes of sentencing given the seriousness of the offending. The court recognised Lockie's low personal culpability and the severe impact on his family but found that a lesser sentence would not adequately denounce and deter similar offending. The final sentence of two years and one month was broadly in line with sentences for co-offenders who played a more peripheral role in the drug supply chain.

Orders