R v MacPherson - [2016] NZHC 1153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-063-3363 [2016] NZHC 1153

THE QUEEN

v

SCOTT MACPHERSON

Hearing: 31 May 2016

Appearances:

B R Northwood for the Crown
A G Speed for the Defendant

Sentence:

31 May 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF MUIR J

Counsel/Solicitors:
B R Northwood, MC, Auckland
A G Speed, Barrister, Auckland

R v MACPHERSON [2016] NZHC 1153 [31 May 2016]

[1] Mr MacPherson you appear before this Court today for sentencing having pleaded guilty to a number of charges relating to methamphetamine offending as well as selling or conspiring to sell cannabis.

[2] Each of the methamphetamine supply, possession for supply and offering to supply charges carry maximum penalties of life imprisonment. That is a reflection of society’s condemnation of those who traffic in the human misery which is associated with methamphetamine consumption and of which you, of all people, are now fully aware.

[3] Due to the nature of your offending there are no victim impact statements filed with the Court. However, I regard it as appropriate to acknowledge the victims of your offending, who are the members of the community that have either been drawn into drug use and addiction or whose habit you have sustained through your offending. Mr Northwood will be familiar with this comment because I made it in relation to Mr Gaitau this morning. Every day our courts are reminded of the huge human toll in terms of domestic violence, shattered careers, shattered families, mental health destroyed and a wide variety of criminal offending which flow from the addictions which you serviced for personal profit, albeit that I accept the submissions of your counsel that that profit seems to have been substantially devoted to sustaining your own habit.

Facts

[4] I traverse briefly the facts. In 2014, the police commenced Operation Goa, investigating the supply of methamphetamine between the North Shore, Auckland area and Rotorua. They obtained surveillance warrants for Messrs Elias and George Gaitau and two other associates from July to November 2014. The warrants uncovered what was a wide scale operation of methamphetamine production and supply, resulting in 44 charges against eight defendants, including you.

[5] You played a key role in the commercial supply of methamphetamine in the North Shore ring. Over the course of the police investigation it was determined that you possessed for supply, or in fact supplied, 151 grams of methamphetamine and in

addition you offered to supply or conspired to supply a further 35 grams. Together the Crown says that the total value was approximately $66,000. You liaised with Mr George Gaitau to regularly move methamphetamine around the country and supply it to members of the community, and your involvement was uncovered through the large number of texts you sent to Mr Gaitau organising the supply and distribution of methamphetamine and cannabis.

Purposes and principles of sentencing

[6] In any case involving serious drug offending of this nature the pre-eminent purposes are to hold you accountable, to denounce the conduct and to deter…

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 MacPherson

Details

AGLC: R v MacPherson [2016] NZHC 1153
Case: [2016] NZHC 1153
Decision Date: 31 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v MacPherson, the defendant was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for methamphetamine and cannabis related charges. MacPherson was found guilty of multiple charges relating to methamphetamine supply, possession for supply, and offering to supply or conspiring to supply cannabis. The court acknowledged the gravity of the offences, particularly the societal impact of methamphetamine distribution, and highlighted the harm caused to individuals and families through addiction and related criminal activities. The court also recognised the defendant’s own methamphetamine addiction, which played a significant role in his offending.

The primary legal issues revolved around determining the appropriate sentencing band for the methamphetamine supply charges, assessing the gravity of the offending and the defendant's culpability, and applying appropriate discounts for the defendant's guilty plea and time spent on restrictive bail conditions. The court referenced previous case law to establish the sentencing bands for methamphetamine supply and considered both aggravating and mitigating factors specific to the defendant. The court also had to balance the principles of accountability, denunciation, and deterrence against the defendant's personal circumstances and motivation for rehabilitation.

After considering the defendant's role in the methamphetamine supply operation, the court placed the offending in Band 2, which covers supplying commercial quantities of methamphetamine. The court set a starting point of six years and six months' imprisonment, adjusted for the lesser quantity involved in the offer to supply and conspiracy charges. The court then factored in personal mitigating factors such as the defendant's acceptance of responsibility, his addiction, and his efforts towards rehabilitation, as well as the significant time spent on restrictive bail conditions. A discount for the guilty plea was also applied, resulting in a final sentence of four years and nine months' imprisonment for the methamphetamine charges, with an additional six months for the cannabis charges, to be served concurrently.

The court concluded with an overall effective sentence of four years and nine months' imprisonment, with certain charges dismissed under the Criminal Procedure Act. The judge expressed hope for the defendant's recovery from addiction.

Orders