R v McLaren - [2016] NZHC 1431

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-004-3439 [2016] NZHC 1431

THE QUEEN

v

RYAN MCLAREN

Hearing: 28 June 2016

Counsel:

K C Chang for Crown
R M Mansfield & S T L Teppett for Mr McLaren

Sentence:

28 June 2016

SENTENCE OF DUFFY J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v MCLAREN [2016] NZHC 1431 [28 June 2016]

Offences

[1] Mr McLaren, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply1 and one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine.2 Both charges carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Factual background

[2] The offending in question took place between 1 August 2014 and 3 April

2015. During that time, the Police intercepted a number of text messages which showed that you were supplying methamphetamine. The Police recorded 29 instances where you supplied methamphetamine to various persons in quantities ranging between 0.25 and 2.5 grams. The total amount of methamphetamine sold during this period of time was 19.15 grams.

[3] On 3 April 2015, you made a series of phone calls to a Mr Lia, seeking to purchase methamphetamine. You met with him and exchanged $9,500 for two parcels of methamphetamine. You were arrested by Police when you returned to your hotel. The Police recovered two packages of methamphetamine weighing a total of 54.20 grams. The total amount of methamphetamine was approximately
73.35 grams.

Personal circumstances

[4] You have a reasonably extensive criminal record, which lists 54 convictions dating back to 1998. Eight of those convictions are for drug-related offending, including one conviction for possession of methamphetamine dating back to 2006. Your most recent conviction was for breach of community work in March 2015 and in January 2015 you were also convicted for shoplifting items valued less than $500. You have been sentenced to imprisonment on two previous occasions and in 2000
you were sentenced to a suspended term of two years’ imprisonment.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f).
2 Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(c);Mr McLaren was originally charged with 30 separate offences: one charge of possession of methamphetamine with intent to supply and 29 charges of supplying methamphetamine. The 29 charge of supplying methamphetamine were condensed into one representative charge spanning form 25 August 2014 to 31 March 2015. .

[5] You have two daughters and report that you would like to address your addiction so that you can be a good father to them. You have recently re-established a relationship with your parents, who care for one of your children. The pre- sentence report states that you previously had contact with a number of negative associates but have not been in contact with those people since your arrest.

[6] The pre-sentence report assesses you as being at a moderate risk of re- offending due to your previous criminal offending and drug dependency. However, the writer suggests that this level of risk would increase if you fail to address your drug problems and continue to offend in order to obtain…

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 McLaren

Details

AGLC: R v McLaren [2016] NZHC 1431
Case: [2016] NZHC 1431
Decision Date: 28 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant Ryan McLaren faced sentencing for methamphetamine-related offences. McLaren had pleaded guilty to one charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply and one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine. Both charges carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, given the specific circumstances of McLaren's case.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate starting point for the sentence, the extent of any discount for McLaren's guilty plea and cooperation with authorities, and the consideration of factors such as McLaren's drug addiction and his efforts towards rehabilitation. The Crown initially suggested a starting point of six and a half years, later reducing it to five years, while the defence argued for a starting point of four years and sought a significant discount due to McLaren's cooperation and remorse.

The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002, particularly the need to denounce and deter methamphetamine offending while also facilitating McLaren's rehabilitation. The court found that McLaren's drug addiction significantly influenced his offending, leading to a starting point of four and a half years imprisonment. After accounting for all discounts, the court determined a sentence of two years imprisonment, which made McLaren eligible for home detention. The court ultimately imposed a sentence of 11 months' home detention, with special conditions to ensure McLaren's continued rehabilitation and to impose a greater restriction on his liberty than a sentence of imprisonment would have.

The final orders of the court were that McLaren be sentenced to 11 months' home detention with special conditions, as outlined in the pre-sentence report. The court strongly advised McLaren to take the opportunity to rehabilitate and cautioned that future methamphetamine offences would not be treated as leniently.

Orders