R v Martin - [2012] NZHC 2381

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2010-092-004750 [2012] NZHC 2381

THE QUEEN

v

LEON GEOFFREY MARTIN

Charges: Permitting premises to be used for the purposes of manufacturing methamphetamine x1;
possession of a pre-cursor substance for the manufacture of methamphetamine x1;
possession of equipment for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine x 1

Plea: Guilty

Hearing: 14 September 2012

Appearances: M R Walker for Crown
P J Kaye for Prisoner

Sentenced: 14 September 2012
Permitting premises to be used – 2 years 7 months imprisonment; Possession of equipment and pre-cursor substances – 1 year’s imprisonment on each (concurrent).
Total sentence: 2 years, 7 months’ imprisonment
SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Copy to: P J Kaye, Auckland

R V MARTIN HC AK CRI-2010-092-004750 [14 September 2012]

[1] Leon Geoffrey Martin you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to charges of permitting premises to be used for the purposes of manufacturing methamphetamine, being in possession of a pre-cursor substance for the manufacture of methamphetamine and being in possession of equipment for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine.

[2] The maximum sentence on the charge of permitting premises to be used is 10 years’ imprisonment. The charges in respect of the pre-cursor substances and equipment carry a maximum of five years’ imprisonment in each case.

[3] Mr Smyth was a suspect in a major police operation aimed at locating and detecting the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine. The police concluded that he was using your address at 222 Ness Valley Road, Clevedon to manufacture methamphetamine. On 31 March 2010 the police executed a search warrant at your address. They found a large amount of industrial chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, including toluene, hydrochloric acid, iodine, caustic soda and acetone. They also found a large amount of equipment used to manufacture methamphetamine, including a water distiller, condenser, a metal condenser containing traces of pseudoephedrine and chlorpheniramine, glass condensers, equipment to make a par bomb, reduction flasks, vacuum pumps and other pieces of equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine. All contained the residue of the drug and had clearly been used for it.

[4] The substances and equipment were found at various places throughout the house. There was also a set of scales and zip lock bags.

[5] In addition there was a .22 calibre pistol wrapped in a tee-shirt on a kitchen bench. Rounds of ammunition were also found in the property.

[6] Mr Smyth was charged with manufacturing methamphetamine but ultimately was discharged during trial.

[7] The Crown submit that, in the case of your offending, having regard to the aggravating features a starting point of three to three and a half years’ imprisonment is appropriate. Mr Kaye submits a starting point of nearer two and a half years is appropriate.

[8] In sentencing you I am required to have regard to the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002. Particularly in this case the relevant purpose is to ensure your accountability for the harm done…

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 Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Martin [2012] NZHC 2381
Case: [2012] NZHC 2381
Decision Date: 14 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leon Geoffrey Martin appeared for sentencing having pleaded guilty to charges of permitting premises to be used for the manufacturing of methamphetamine, possession of a precursor substance for the manufacture of methamphetamine, and possession of equipment for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine. The maximum sentence for permitting premises to be used is ten years' imprisonment, and five years' imprisonment for each of the other charges. The court found that the police executed a search warrant at Martin's address and found a large amount of industrial chemicals and equipment used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, as well as a firearm and ammunition. The Crown submitted that a starting point of three to three and a half years' imprisonment is appropriate, while Martin's counsel submitted a starting point of two and a half years is appropriate.

The court considered the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002, particularly the need to ensure Martin's accountability for the harm done to the community. The court found that Martin's home was used for a commercial operation and that the presence of the firearm at the property underscores the commerciality and seriousness of the operation. The court also considered Martin's personal circumstances, including his age, criminal history, and explanation for his offending. The court found that Martin's guilty plea was late and that the Crown case against him was exceedingly strong. The court sentenced Martin to two years and seven months' imprisonment for permitting premises to be used, and one year's imprisonment for each of the other charges, to run concurrently. The court also ordered forfeiture of all drug-related equipment, materials, precursor substances, and the firearm and ammunition found at the property.

Martin was sentenced to two years and seven months' imprisonment for permitting premises to be used, and one year's imprisonment for each of the other charges, to run concurrently. The court also ordered forfeiture of all drug-related equipment, materials, precursor substances, and the firearm and ammunition found at the property. The court's reasoning was based on the need to ensure Martin's accountability for the harm done to the community, the seriousness of the offending, and the need for consistency with other sentences imposed in this area.

Orders