R v McKinley - [2017] NZHC 834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-085-006779 [2017] NZHC 834

THE QUEEN

v

DARREN GEORGE SAMUEL MCKINLEY

Counsel:
P K Feltham for Crown

E A Hall for Defendant

Sentence:

28 April 2017

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr McKinley, you are being sentenced today in relation to the following charges:

(1) Three charges of supplying methamphetamine.1

(2) One charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.2 (3) One charge of participation in an organised criminal group.3 (4) Two charges of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine.4
(5) One charge of conspiracy to defeat the course of justice.5

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a). Maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
2      Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(a). Maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A. Maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2A)(a). Maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.

R v MCKINLEY [2017] NZHC 834 [28 April 2017]

[2] You pleaded guilty following a sentence indication on 16 August 2016. That indication was five years and five months’ imprisonment. I noted that further deductions may be taken into account at sentencing. You have now completed the first phase of a drug treatment programme at Odyssey House, which I will factor into your sentence.

[3] This afternoon I shall:

(1) summarise your offending;

(2) explain the starting point I have adopted;

(3) explain adjustments to the starting point; and

(4) explain your final sentence.

Your offending

[4] Since early 2013, the investigation “Operation Fantail” targeted a large scale methamphetamine supply network. You are one of the defendants who was involved in the sale and distribution of methamphetamine.

Supplying methamphetamine

[5] The supplying of methamphetamine charges relate to three incidents between

23 March and 10 June 2014.

[6] The first incident involved a number of transactions with your co-defendant

Mr Stretch where you would meet at your home address or nearby. A total of

68 grams of methamphetamine was supplied to Mr Stretch.

[7] The second incident involved you supplying methamphetamine to a number of individuals on a number of occasions. There were more than 90 transactions,
usually involving a quarter of a gram of methamphetamine.

5 Crimes Act 1961, s 116. Maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.

[8] The third incident involved you supplying Mr Murdoch regularly one gram of methamphetamine on at least 16 occasions.

Conspiracy to supply methamphetamine

[9] The conspiracy charges refer to two incidents.

[10] On 21 May 2014, you worked with Mr Beazley in arranging the supply and purchase of a large amount of methamphetamine from the Auckland-based defendant, Mr Wildman. Eventually all parties agreed on a price of between
$63,000- $65,000 for 142 grams of methamphetamine. You arranged the delivery of cash with Mr Murdoch, another defendant whom I have sentenced, and drove with Mr Beazley to meet the couriers at a motel in Paraparaumu.

[11] The deal was intercepted by police who located 142 grams of methamphetamine and a handwritten note with…

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 McKinley

Details

AGLC: R v McKinley [2017] NZHC 834
Case: [2017] NZHC 834
Decision Date: 28 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Darren George Samuel McKinley was heard. McKinley was being sentenced on various drug-related charges, including supplying and possessing methamphetamine, participating in an organised criminal group, and conspiracy to defeat the course of justice. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for McKinley, taking into account the nature and extent of his criminal activities, his role in the drug supply network, and various mitigating factors such as his participation in a drug rehabilitation program and his display of remorse. The court considered the aggravating factors such as the quantity and value of the drugs involved, the planning and premeditation of the offenses, and McKinley's position as an "operations manager" in the drug supply network. The court also evaluated mitigating factors such as McKinley's completion of a drug treatment program, his compliance with bail conditions, the forfeiture of his property, and his genuine remorse. Following a comprehensive assessment, the court determined a final sentence of four years and eight months' imprisonment for McKinley, which was to be served concurrently on each charge. This sentence reflected a balance between the severity of the offenses and the mitigating factors presented.

Orders