R v McMahon - [2012] NZHC 3372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-085-7779 [2012] NZHC 3372

THE QUEEN

v

SANDRA JACQUELINE MCMAHON

Hearing: 12 December 2012

Counsel: S K Barr for Crown
C L Parkin for Defendant

Sentencing: 12 December 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MACKENZIE J

[1] Sandra Jacqueline McMahon, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to:

(a) Five charges of possession of the Class C drug cannabis for supply;1

(b) One charge of selling the Class C drug cannabis;2 and

(c) One charge of money laundering.3

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and (2)(c), with a maximum penalty of eight years imprisonment on each charge.
2      Sections 6(1)(e) and (2)(c), with a maximum penalty of eight years imprisonment.
3      Section 12B(2), with a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.

R V MCMAHON HC WN CRI-2012-085-7779 [12 December 2012]

[2] You appear for sentence in this Court because the District Court has declined jurisdiction to sentence you.

[3] The circumstances of the offending are that in February 2012, the police commenced an investigation into the supply of cannabis by your family in the Wellington region. This investigation indicated that you, and police allege, your son, had carried on a substantial drug dealing operation for at least seven years. Your son faces charges which he is defending. This was a large operation with over
150 different customers who would buy cannabis from you on a regular basis, some once or twice a week and some once every two to three days. Some of your customers were on-selling to others.

[4] Between 5 and 14 June 2012, the police observed you and your son and intercepted your telephone communications. The phone conversations showed that you were selling cannabis to your customer base on a daily basis. Your customers would call you and arrange to meet up so that you could deliver their cannabis. For that 10 day period, you sold or offered to sell cannabis on 205 separate occasions with an average of 22 sales per day. Of those 205 transactions, you sold cannabis twice to 31 individual customers and three times to four individual customers. These transactions were identified by intercepting your cell phone communications. The police were unable to identify the quantity of cannabis that you were selling to each customer. But on at least two occasions you sold one ounce of cannabis and on at least one occasion you sold half an ounce. It was also clear from the search of your vehicle and addresses that occurred when you were arrested that you sold ounces, half ounces, $50 bags and $20 tinnies. On the night of 14 June when you were arrested, over one pound (490 grams) of cannabis packaged for sale was found in your vehicle.

[5] It became apparent from the intercepted phone communications that you were obtaining cannabis from at least two different suppliers. On Wednesday 6 June
2012, you arranged to meet with one of those suppliers. On the following day, the police followed you…

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 McMahon

Details

AGLC: R v McMahon [2012] NZHC 3372
Case: [2012] NZHC 3372
Decision Date: 12 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sandra Jacqueline McMahon was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for her involvement in a large-scale cannabis operation. She pleaded guilty to five counts of possession of cannabis for supply, one count of selling cannabis, and one count of money laundering. The court found that McMahon and her son had been running a substantial drug dealing operation for at least seven years, with over 150 customers. The police investigation revealed that McMahon was selling cannabis on a daily basis and had made over one pound (490 grams) of cannabis packaged for sale, along with $5,070 in cash, at the time of her arrest.

The legal issues in the case involved determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the nature and scale of McMahon's offending, and assessing the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including holding McMahon accountable for her offending, denouncing her actions, deterring her and others from similar offending, and ensuring her rehabilitation.

The court found that McMahon's offending was large-scale commercial offending, placing her in the most serious category. It assessed the scale of the operation by considering the facts presented and concluded that a starting point of eight years imprisonment was appropriate. The court also considered the money laundering charge as an aggravating feature, justifying a small uplift of six months. McMahon's previous convictions warranted an additional six-month uplift. The court allowed a 25% discount for her guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of six years and nine months imprisonment, to be served concurrently on all charges.

The final orders of the court were that McMahon be sentenced to six years and nine months imprisonment on each of the charges of possession of cannabis for supply, six years and nine months imprisonment on the charge of selling cannabis, and three years imprisonment on the charge of money laundering, all to be served concurrently.

Orders