R v Manuel - [2012] NZHC 264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2010-009-008952 [2012] NZHC 264

REGINA

v

RORY EDWARD MANUEL

Appearances: P Shamy and B Hawes for Crown
J Rapley for Prisoner

Judgment: 23 February 2012

SENTENCE OF HON JUSTICE FRENCH

[1] Rory Edward Manuel, following pleas of guilty, you appear this afternoon for sentence on two counts:

i) conspiring to supply methamphetamine;

ii) unlawful possession of explosives.

Facts of the offending

[2] Your offending came to light as the result of a police operation called Operation Granite. Operation Granite was an investigation into what the police say was a large-scale drug manufacturing and distribution ring.

[3] You were identified by police as part of the wholesale distribution network, receiving methamphetamine from another person and on-selling quantities of it to

R V MANUEL HC CHCH CRI-2010-009-008952 [23 February 2012]

dealers who in turn would sell the drugs to members of the public. You are said to have taken orders via cellphone, delivered the drugs and uplifted the money.

[4] According to the police, your offending spanned the entire period of their investigation and involved at least 35 grams of methamphetamine.

[5] Mr Rapley, your lawyer, however, argues that this is based on a misinterpretation of the text communications. Your instructions are that you only started sending texts about the sale of drugs on 15 May 2010, which is at least a month later than the police say. Further, your instructions are that you initially were purchasing the methamphetamine socially for yourself and friends, and that it was not until 6 June 2010, which is near the end of the police investigation, that you decided to venture into a more significant deal, which did not proceed as planned. It was on 6 June 2010 that you obtained 14 grams of methamphetamine and lost 10 of them. That, you say, was the first time you ventured into supplying methamphetamine at that level. Prior to that you were obtaining smaller quantities, such as points.

[6] Despite this dispute on the facts, counsel are agreed that a contested facts hearing is not necessary because ultimately it does not make a significant difference to the outcome.

[7] When a search warrant was executed at your address, police discovered four rounds of ammunition. Your explanation was that another member of the ring had left this ammunition in the flat where you were living. No firearm was found.

Pre-sentence report

[8] I have read the pre-sentence report. It tells me that you are 28 years of age, a man who had a tragic childhood, who sadly has been offending since his early teens and who has spent much of his adult life in prison. You are described as being at risk of becoming institutionalised.

[9] Your previous convictions include serious violence, escaping lawful custody, aggravated robbery, and property and dishonesty offences. The only drug-related offending is a conviction for possession of a cannabis plant.

[10] The report says that you have a history of problematic substance abuse and that…

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 Manuel

Details

AGLC: R v Manuel [2012] NZHC 264
Case: [2012] NZHC 264
Decision Date: 23 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, Justice French handed down a sentencing decision in the case of Regina v Rory Edward Manuel. Manuel was convicted on two counts: conspiring to supply methamphetamine and unlawful possession of explosives. Manuel's offending came to light through a police operation named Operation Granite, which targeted a large-scale drug manufacturing and distribution ring. Manuel was identified as part of the wholesale distribution network, involved in receiving and on-selling methamphetamine to dealers who would sell to the public. The disputed facts centered on the quantities of methamphetamine involved and the timeline of Manuel's involvement in the drug trade.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the culpability of the offending and whether Manuel's personal circumstances warranted any adjustment to the starting point. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, particularly the need to condemn the offending on behalf of the community and the need for deterrence. The court followed a two-stage approach in determining the sentence, first fixing the starting point and then considering any personal factors. The court found that Manuel's offending fell into the second band for methamphetamine involvement, which indicated a starting point of three to nine years' imprisonment. Due to Manuel's role in the network and the completion of the conspiracy, the court applied a 10% reduction for the conspiracy charge. Personal aggravating factors, such as Manuel being on parole at the time of the offending, warranted an uplift of three to five months, while mitigating factors such as Manuel's guilty plea warranted a 25% discount. The final sentence was three years' imprisonment for conspiring to supply methamphetamine, and two months' imprisonment for unlawful possession of ammunition, to run concurrently.

Orders