Legal Research
Cases
R v McGrath

R v McGrath

Case [2018] NZHC 2212 27 August 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES,

OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT AND CONNECTED PERSON AND ANY INFORMATION RELATING TO HER PERSONAL MEDICAL CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 UNTIL 5.00 PM, 30 NOVEMBER 2018. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-090-303

[2018] NZHC 2212

THE QUEEN

v

JASON RODERICK McGRATH

Hearing: 27 August 2018

Counsel:

F Culliney for Crown

G C Gotlieb for Defendant

Judgment:

27 August 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v McGRATH [2018] NZHC 2212 [27 August 2018]

[1] Mr McGrath, you appear for sentence on one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply, three charges of unlawful possession of a firearm, and one of unlawful possession of ammunition. The maximum sentence for methamphetamine offending is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for firearms offending is four years.

[2] I previously gave you a sentencing indication of between 12 years and two months and 14 years, with the potential for adjustment depending on further and closer assessment of your personal circumstances. I also reserved my position on minimum sentence.

The facts

[3] The facts of your offending are as follows. On 19 January 2018, the police had cause to search your home address. Inside a room at that address the police found methamphetamine, three semi-automatic assault rifles, a fourth disassembled assault rifle, 374 rounds of ammunition and a silencer. A large quantity of the rounds were loaded in banana or drum-type magazines which could allow the firearms to shoot 60 rounds before needing reloading. All four assault rifles had their serial numbers ground off so they could not be identified.

[4]Cash and drugs were also located in the master bedroom and in the laundry.

$2,700,000 was also found on the property. The preliminary weight of the methamphetamine was two kilograms with a street value of approximately
$2,000,000. You told the police that you were responsible for the drugs and firearms and that your family had nothing to do with it.

Personal circumstances

[5] In terms of your personal circumstances, Mr McGrath, you are 48 years old. This is your first methamphetamine charge. You had a conviction for cannabis cultivation in 2008 but, otherwise, no other relevant convictions, for the purposes of this sentence.

[6] I have also had the benefit of two reports by a clinical psychologist, Barry Kirker. You are diagnosed as suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), and have had this condition much of your life. The report also notes that your psychological difficulties appear to have their origins in childhood. The reports says that your OCD condition appears to have contributed to aspects of your offending and that it led you to adopt certain problematic routines and engage in hoarding behaviour. It says it appears you could not stop your offending, despite the risks, due to the excessive level of anxiety involved. It also noted that drug abuse may be connected to this…

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 McGrath

Details

AGLC: R v McGrath [2018] NZHC 2212
Case: [2018] NZHC 2212
Decision Date: 27 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court of New Zealand involved the sentencing of Jason Roderick McGrath, who was charged with possession of methamphetamine for supply, possession of firearms, and possession of ammunition. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for McGrath, considering the severity of the charges and his personal circumstances, including his mental health condition. The legal issues included determining the starting point for sentencing, the influence of McGrath's mental health on his offending, and the applicability of discounts for his guilty plea and mental health condition. The court also had to decide on suppression of McGrath's and his daughter's identities to protect the latter from potential harm due to the publicity of the case.

The court determined a starting point for McGrath's sentence of 15 years, considering the significant commercial scale of his methamphetamine enterprise and the possession of numerous firearms. The court acknowledged the influence of McGrath's obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and anxiety on his offending, which led to a discount of 15% on his sentence. Additionally, the court afforded a 25% discount for McGrath's early guilty plea. The final sentence imposed was 10 years and one month imprisonment for the methamphetamine charge and two years for the firearms and ammunition charges, to be served concurrently. The court also granted a suppression order for McGrath's and his daughter's identities until a specified date, to mitigate potential harm to the daughter arising from the publicity of the case.

This case highlights the importance of considering an offender's mental health and personal circumstances in sentencing, as well as the need to protect vulnerable individuals connected to the offender from potential harm due to publicity. The court balanced the principles of open justice and open reporting with the need to protect the well-being of McGrath's daughter, ultimately granting a temporary suppression order to safeguard her from potential harm due to the publicity of the case.

Orders