R v McIntosh - [2012] NZHC 3110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-042-2035 [2012] NZHC 3110

THE QUEEN

v

GARETH JOHN MCINTOSH

Counsel: E J Riddell for Crown
JCS Sandston for Defendant

Judgment: 21 November 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MACKENZIE J

[1] Mr McIntosh, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine, for the purpose of supply.[1]
[1] Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(a), with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

[2] The facts are that on 25 July of this year, you checked into a Nelson motel under an assumed name for a one night stay. You left your room the following morning. When the room was being cleaned, cleaners located a package, that had been left behind, that contained two containers with 11 grams of a crystalline substance.

[3] You returned to your room twice on the following day after you had checked out searching it on the pretext that you were looking for some cash you had left
behind. You booked into the same room on that night of 26 July and were located

R V MCINTOSH HC NEL CRI-2012-042-2035 [21 November 2012]

there by the police the next morning, when a search warrant was executed. The police located digital scales, a pipe used for smoking methamphetamine, $490 in cash and two ‘point’ bags believed to contain methamphetamine. During a search of your vehicle, the police also discovered a key to a storage unit.

[4] The storage unit was searched pursuant to a search warrant. The unit contained a vehicle registered in your name. In the spare wheel compartment, police located a bag containing two bundles of cash, which amounted to $15,800. A small box contained snap lock bags, and at least two of those contained a white crystalline powder and were of a similar size to ‘point bags’. Your home was also searched. The police located $690 in cash and a number of cell phones.

[5] You admitted to police that the package found in your motel room was yours and it contained methamphetamine. You said that you thought there was about
10 grams of the drug in the containers. You denied selling the drug and said it was all for your own use. You claimed you had purchased 11 grams of methamphetamine paying $9,000 the previous week. You said that the cash was from your wages as a courier driver.

[6] You are 34 years old. At the time of your offending you were living with your mother in Nelson, and were working as a courier driver in the Nelson area. You were in a relationship. Your partner began to suspect that you had been using drugs. That relationship was affected by that, but has been resumed and in a letter to the court, your partner has said you have her unconditional support and she is willing to help you with your rehabilitation. I have also read the other letters provided to the Court…

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 McIntosh

Details

AGLC: R v McIntosh [2012] NZHC 3110
Case: [2012] NZHC 3110
Decision Date: 21 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Nelson Registry, the defendant, Gareth John McIntosh, faced sentencing for possession of methamphetamine with intent to supply. McIntosh had pleaded guilty to the charge, which involved 11 grams of a crystalline substance found in his motel room. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence in light of McIntosh’s prior convictions, his expressed desire for rehabilitation, and the nature of the current offence.

The primary legal issue the court addressed was the determination of an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering McIntosh’s previous drug-related convictions and the specifics of his current offence. The court had to weigh the aggravating factors, such as McIntosh's prior convictions and the quantity of drugs involved, against the mitigating factors, including his early guilty plea and his expressed commitment to rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the sentence should run concurrently with the sentence McIntosh was already recalled to serve.

In delivering the judgment, MacKenzie J considered the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The judge concluded that the appropriate starting point for the offence was three years imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the crime and the amount of drugs involved. An uplift of three months was added to account for McIntosh’s previous drug-related convictions, while a discount of nine months was applied for his early guilty plea. Consequently, the final sentence was set at two years and six months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the sentence McIntosh was already serving. The court also ordered the forfeiture of the cash found during the police searches, totaling $16,980.

This case underscores the importance of addressing underlying addiction issues in drug-related sentencing, as well as the potential for rehabilitation and support from family members to influence sentencing outcomes.

Orders