R v Masters - [2012] NZHC 1940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2011-404-185 [2012] NZHC 1940

THE QUEEN

v

JOSHUA MASTERS

Hearing: 3 August 2012

Counsel: B Northwood for Crown
RM Mansfield and V Withy for Prisoner

Judgment: 3 August 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

Solicitors:
RM Mansfield/V Withy, Barrister, Auckland: ron@22lorne.c.nz
J Shaw, Meredith Connell, Auckland: Joshua.shaw@meredithconnell.co.nz

R V MASTERS HC AK CRI-2011-404-185 [3 August 2012]

[1] Joshua James Masters, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one count of supplying the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine on 23 April 2008; one count of conspiring to supply methamphetamine on 1 May 2008; one count, which is a representative charge, of supplying the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine between 12 February 2008 and 5 May 2008; and one count of money laundering.

The circumstances of your offending

[2] You were arrested in May 2008 at the end of an extensive Police investigation into the activities of the Tribesmen and Killer Beez gangs, which included some
84 days of intercepting telephone calls and text messages. A large number of persons were arrested - I think Mr Northwood said something in the order of 44 or so
- principally on charges of dealing in methamphetamine; other drugs were also involved.

[3] You pleaded guilty to the four charges on 6 September 2010 and, almost two years after that, I delivered a judgment following a pre-sentence disputed facts hearing conducted under s 24 of the Sentencing Act.1 For the reasons given in that judgment, I concluded that you had a substantial leadership role in the Killer Beez gang and that, along with other members of the gang, you were heavily involved in major drug dealing.

[4] Despite your guilty pleas, entered at the beginning of your scheduled trial, your evidence at the disputed facts hearing was intended to minimise your involvement in drug offending and went so far as to suggest that you were not in fact guilty of the charges of supplying Mr Liu and not guilty of money laundering. You claimed that you were opposed to dealing in drugs and suggested that what I accept are your considerable leadership qualities were directed to demonstrating to those with whom you associated that there were legitimate ways to make progress in life.

[5] On your evidence, you focused most of your time and attention on the Colour Way Records business which, I accept, involved the promotion of South Auckland- based recording artists, including yourself; the holding of concerts; and the production of CDs and related merchandise. You said, however, that those around you did what they needed to do to get on in life and that, while you were aware that some of them were dealing in drugs, you did no more than put people in touch with each other.

[6] You claimed that that was the basis on which you pleaded guilty after being advised that what you were doing was against the law.

[7] I trust I made it clear in…

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 Masters

Details

AGLC: R v Masters [2012] NZHC 1940
Case: [2012] NZHC 1940
Decision Date: 3 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshua James Masters pleaded guilty to multiple charges including the supply and conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, and money laundering. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence after considering the totality of his offending, his role in the drug dealing activities, and his personal circumstances. The court established a starting point of 11 years' imprisonment, reflecting the nature of his offending and comparing it to sentences imposed on co-offenders. Despite Masters' claim of remorse and efforts at rehabilitation, the court found his attempts to minimise his involvement in drug dealing unconvincing. The court imposed a discount of seven months for his late guilty pleas, resulting in an effective end sentence of ten years and five months' imprisonment, with a minimum period of five years and nine months before eligibility for parole. The court's final orders included the sentences on the specified counts and discharge on the remaining counts.

Orders