R v McGoldrick-Savaii - [2018] NZHC 233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA

CRI-2017-091-000902

[2018] NZHC 233

THE QUEEN

v

HAYDEN HARLEY McGOLDRICK-SAVAII

Counsel: R Georgiou for Crown A N Isac for Defendant

Sentence:

23 February 2018

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr McGoldrick-Savaii, today you are to be sentenced on the following charges:

(1)one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine;1

(2)one representative charge of offering to supply methamphetamine;2 and

(3)one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.3

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
2      Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
3      Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(c). Maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

R v McGOLDRICK-SAVAII [2018] NZHC 233 [23 February 2018]

[2] You pleaded guilty to those charges after receiving a sentence indication from me on 7 December 2017.4

[3]This morning I shall:

(1)outline your offending;

(2)summarise your personal circumstances;

(3)set out the starting point for your offending;

(4)explain the adjustments I will make to that starting point; and

(5)state your final sentence.

Your offending

[4] The charges result from a police operation code-named “Operation Walnut”, which commenced in November 2016. That investigation targeted the commercial supply of methamphetamine in the Wellington region.

[5] Police intercepted communications and carried out visual surveillance of two principal targets, Mr Blance and Mr Berkland. It is alleged by the Crown that they were purchasing kilogram quantities of methamphetamine from Auckland-based suppliers. Mr Blance and Mr Berkland would then on-supply the methamphetamine to a number of associates in their distribution networks. Most of the offending took place at an address at 40 Coates Street, Tawa. Associates would then on-supply the methamphetamine further.

[6] You are one of the associates. You were identified by police as buying methamphetamine off Mr Blance for on-supply to customers in your own network. Between 4 March and 11 April 2017, you were seen visiting the Coates Street address on 25 occasions. Intercepted communications and phone data indicate your dealings with Mr Blance and others.

4 R v McGoldrick-Savaii [2017] NZHC 3027.

[7] Between 20 February and 11 April 2017, you purchased no less than 119 grams of methamphetamine. There is evidence that you on-supplied no less than 83.5 grams of methamphetamine, at a total cost of almost $40,000 at cost price.

[8] You are characterised in the summary of facts as a “middle level methamphetamine dealer in [your] own right”. The summary of facts refers to 45 instances of offending including around 28 offers/supplies that could not be quantified.

[9] On 11 April 2017, the police executed a search warrant of your home address. Your garage was fortified with a steel door to prevent access and a CCTV monitoring system was found to be operating. Police found a “drug dealing kit” containing a small plastic snap lock bag with two grams of methamphetamine, a glass pipe, one gram of cannabis, digital scales and a small bag containing a number of other…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v McGoldrick-Savaii and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NZHC 233
Decision Date: 23 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hayden Harley McGoldrick-Savaii was sentenced for drug-related offences following a police operation targeting the commercial supply of methamphetamine in Wellington. The defendant pleaded guilty to charges of supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine, as well as possessing methamphetamine for supply. The court outlined the defendant's offending, noting the significant quantity of methamphetamine involved and his role as a middle-level dealer. The court then examined the defendant's personal circumstances, including his methamphetamine addiction and his commitment to rehabilitation. The starting point for sentencing was set at five years and six months' imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the drug-related offending. Various mitigating factors, such as the defendant's guilty plea and his efforts to address his addiction, were considered, resulting in a discount of six months. Ultimately, the court sentenced the defendant to three years and six months' imprisonment, with the sentences running concurrently.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of accountability, deterrence, denunciation, and the least restrictive sentence available. The court emphasised the significant harm caused by methamphetamine and the need to hold the defendant accountable for his actions. The sentence also aimed to promote a sense of responsibility and deter others from similar offending. The final sentence of three years and six months' imprisonment was deemed appropriate to achieve these objectives while considering the defendant's personal circumstances and mitigating factors.

Orders