R v MacFarlane - [2023] NZHC 172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-063-3188

[2023] NZHC 172

THE KING

v

WILLIAM LUKE MACFARLANE

Hearing: 10 February 2023

Appearances:

C Macklin for the Crown

M A Edgar for the Defendant

Sentencing:

10 February 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors: Gordon Pilditch (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Rotorua Counsel: M Edgar, Auckland

R v MACFARLANE [2023] NZHC 172 [10 February 2023]

[1]Mr MacFarlane, you appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty to 16 charges:

(a)Receiving;1

(b)Importation of gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) (x 4, each representative);2

(c)Possession of GBL for supply; 3

(d)Supply of GBL;4

(e)Manufacturing methamphetamine;5

(f)Importation of methamphetamine (representative);6

(g)Attempt to import methamphetamine (representative);7

(h)Conspiracy to supply methamphetamine;8

(i)Possession of methamphetamine for supply; 9

(j)Supply of precursor for methamphetamine;10

(k)Offering to supply methamphetamine;11

(l)Supply of methamphetamine;12 and

(m)Importation of MDMA.13

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 247(a), maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a) and (2)(b), maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(b), maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(b), maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 6(1)(b) and 2(a), maximum penalty life imprisonment.
6      Section 6(1)(a) and (2)(a), maximum penalty life imprisonment.
7      Section 6(1)(a) and (2)(a), maximum penalty life imprisonment.
8      Section 6(1)(c) and (2A)(a), maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
9      Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(a), maximum penalty life imprisonment.
10     Section 12A(2)(a) and (3)(b), maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
11     Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(a), maximum penalty life imprisonment.
12     Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(a), maximum penalty life imprisonment.
13     Section 6(1)(a) and (2)(b), maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

[2] On 5 October 2022 my sentence indication, which you accepted, was that I would sentence you to no more than 11 years’ imprisonment.14

Background

[3] The facts of your offending are set out in my sentence indication and will be attached to this judgment. However, I will summarise the more important facts.

[4] Your offending arises from Police Operation Schultz, an investigation into an organised criminal network that manufactured, imported and supplied methamphetamine in the Bay of Plenty. You were the principal offender in the network. You used websites on the dark net to purchase controlled drugs and chemicals from around the world, paying for them with Bitcoin. You then arranged to have the packages sent to addresses of known associates under fictitious names. You paid these associates $300 per package for allowing their addresses to be used.

[5] When the packages arrived, you would uplift them or have them delivered to you. You would then supply the drugs or chemicals to your associates to be sold or to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.

[6] On 10 November 2019 at about two am, an unknown person stole 3,050 kilograms of iodine prills from Mainfreight Transport, Mount Maunganui. This person then supplied you with approximately half of the stolen iodine. You later swapped one 50 kilogram drum of iodine for a vehicle.

[7] Between…

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 MacFarlane

Details

AGLC: R v MacFarlane [2023] NZHC 172
Case: [2023] NZHC 172
Decision Date: 10 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, William Luke MacFarlane was sentenced for his involvement in an organised criminal network that manufactured, imported, and supplied methamphetamine in the Bay of Plenty. MacFarlane pleaded guilty to 16 charges, including receiving, importing, and supplying controlled substances such as gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), methamphetamine, and MDMA. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for MacFarlane, considering the severity of the offending, his personal circumstances, and the principles of sentencing.

The court found that while MacFarlane's addiction and early life circumstances played a part in his offending, his leading role in the sophisticated operation implied that he exercised deliberate agency in his actions. The court applied a discount of five per cent for the impact of addiction and early life circumstances, a further five per cent discount for remorse, and a 25 per cent discount for his guilty plea. The court considered that a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) was necessary in this case due to the recidivist and commercial nature of the offending. After weighing various factors, the court decided that a 50 per cent MPI was sufficient to meet the objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community.

MacFarlane was sentenced to nine years and six months' imprisonment, with an MPI of four years and nine months on all charges except for receiving and supplying a precursor for methamphetamine, for which he received a sentence of two and a half years' imprisonment to be served concurrently with the other charges. This sentence reflects the gravity of the offending, while also considering MacFarlane's personal circumstances and the principles of sentencing.

Orders