R v McMeeking - [2023] NZHC 167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-063-3188

[2023] NZHC 167

THE KING

v

DANIEL TERE MCMEEKING

Hearing: 10 February 2023

Appearances:

C Macklin for the Crown

R Mansfield KC for the Defendant

Sentencing:

10 February 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors: Gordon Pilditch (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Rotorua Counsel: R Mansfield KC, Auckland

R v MCMEEKING [2023] NZHC 167 [10 February 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr Daniel McMeeking, you are for sentence today having pleaded guilty to conspiring both to supply and to manufacture methamphetamine,1 and to possessing iodine, a precursor substance.2

Facts

[2] The charges arise out of your participation in a criminal network that was uncovered by a Police operation codenamed “Schultz”. The network consisted of a number of individuals involved in the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine in the Rotorua area. The principal offender in the network was Mr William MacFarlane. Other members included Mr Andrei Kupkovic, who facilitated the importation of ephedrine; Ms Jane Dennis, who was the designated methamphetamine “cook”; and Ms Charlotte Ward, who tracked consignments and arranged money transfers.

[3] Mr McMeeking, you were a high-ranking member of the group. Mr MacFarlane referred to you as his “business partner”. At the time of your offending, you were a senior member of the Mangu Kaha chapter of the Black Power gang. You assisted Mr MacFarlane by supplying the imported drugs as well as assisting with the manufacture of methamphetamine once the required precursors had been imported into New Zealand.

[4] Sentencing is to proceed on the basis of the summary of facts to which you have pleaded guilty to. I will now traverse the facts of your offending.

Conspiracy to supply charge

[5] On 12 August 2020 you and Mr MacFarlane discussed manufacturing methamphetamine. You queried whether another cook was needed for the manufacturing process, but Mr MacFarlane insisted that they were getting a “mean price” out of Ms Dennis. You then discussed matters of quantities and supply. You

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2A)(a): maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 12A(2)(b) and (3)(b): maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

both agreed to put the first 300 grams of methamphetamine into the “shop”, and to sell the balance as ounces so that your supplier could immediately be paid. Mr MacFarlane stated that they could expect 30 ounces.

[6] On 14 August 2020 you again discussed manufacturing methamphetamine with Mr MacFarlane. Mr MacFarlane stated that he had 25 ounces of methamphetamine on the way. You both then conferred on the matter of sale price and agreed to sell the methamphetamine at $8,000 per ounce.

Conspiracy to manufacture charge

[7] On 6 August 2020, Mr MacFarlane and Mr Kupkovic discussed the supply of hypophosphorous acid, iodine, and ephedrine; all precursor substances in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Mr Kupkovic noted that 25 kilograms of iodine was on its way. This conversation was in regard to a course of conduct whereby…

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 McMeeking

Details

AGLC: R v McMeeking [2023] NZHC 167
Case: [2023] NZHC 167
Decision Date: 10 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v McMeeking involved Daniel Tere McMeeking, who was sentenced for conspiring to supply and manufacture methamphetamine, as well as possessing a precursor substance. The case was heard and determined by Woolford J in the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry. The primary legal issue was to determine an appropriate sentence for McMeeking based on his involvement in a methamphetamine manufacturing and supply conspiracy, and to consider various mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the final sentence.

The court first established a starting point for the sentence by assessing the gravity of the offending and McMeeking's role within the conspiracy. The court determined that McMeeking's involvement in the conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine placed him in the highest band of offending, correlating with a starting point of 10 years to life imprisonment. The court found that McMeeking played a significant coordinating role within the conspiracy, though not as leading as the principal offender. This led to a notional starting point of 15 years’ imprisonment, which was then reduced by 50% due to the immaturity of the conspiracy, resulting in a final starting point of 7 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. The court also applied an uplift of 4 months due to McMeeking being on release conditions at the time of offending.

The court then considered various mitigating factors including McMeeking's cultural background, efforts towards rehabilitation, expression of remorse, and the time he spent on electronic monitoring bail. The court accepted that McMeeking's early life circumstances and addiction issues contributed to his offending but also noted the deliberate nature of his involvement. The court allowed discounts totaling 50% for these factors and for his guilty pleas. Additionally, the court granted a partial discount for time spent on bail, amounting to a 40% reduction of the 12 months he spent on electronic monitoring.

Taking all these factors into account, Woolford J sentenced McMeeking to three and a half years' imprisonment for the conspiracy charges and two and a half years' imprisonment for the possession charge, to be served concurrently. This decision balanced the need for accountability, deterrence, and rehabilitation in accordance with the Sentencing Act 2002.

Orders