Legal Research
Cases
R v McQuade

R v McQuade

Case [2022] NZHC 559 25 March 2022

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Participation in an Organised Criminal Group

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2021-419-79

[2022] NZHC 559

THE QUEEN

v

ALAN CLINTON McQUADE

Hearing: 25 March 2022

Appearances:

J Hamilton and K Whyte for the Crown S Lance for Mr McQuade

Sentencing:

25 March 2022

SENTENCE OF GAULT J

Solicitors / Counsel:
Ms J Hamilton and Mr K Whyte, Hamilton Legal, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Hamilton Mr S Lance and Ms K Hogan, Barristers, Auckland

R v McQUADE [2022] NZHC 559 [25 March 2022]

[1] Mr McQuade, you have pleaded guilty to four charges following a sentence indication I gave you on 9 February 2022:1

(a)manufacturing methamphetamine;2

(b)supplying methamphetamine;3

(c)participating in an organised criminal group;4 and

(d)possessing material for the manufacture of methamphetamine.5

[2] I will annex the sentence indication to my sentencing remarks, but it is necessary to repeat some of it given the public nature of sentencing.

Facts of the offending

[3]I begin by setting out the facts of your offending.

Manufacture of methamphetamine

[4] On 28 October 2018, police attended 107 Horrell Road, a large rural property located on the outskirts of Morrinsville. On the property was a residential dwelling with multiple sheds, outbuildings, and small structures in a cluster some distance from the house.

[5] Police attempted to locate the occupier of the property, Donald Armstrong. They approached the outbuildings and observed a number of items consistent with the manufacture of the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine, including reaction vessels, chemical containers and glassware.

[6]A short time later, police located Mr Armstrong on the property.

1      R v McQuade [2022] NZHC 129.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(b). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A. Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 12A(2)(a). Maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.

[7] A specialist team from the Clandestine Laboratory Unit was called in to examine the sheds and outbuildings. During their search, they located a secret room disguised by a false wall and false fittings.

[8] An extensive selection of equipment used in the manufacture of methamphetamine was located in the outbuildings. This included five large parbombs, a steam condenser, five water-filled condensers, four steel distillers, eight hotplates/gas burners and glassware, including separators, 15 reaction flasks, vials and tubing.

[9] The search also uncovered materials used in the manufacture of methamphetamine – 12 kilograms of sodium hydroxide, 5 litres of hypophosphorous acid, and 8.7 kilograms of iodine. In addition, police located 10 litres of the precursor substance hydrochloric acid. A small amount (.934 milligrams) of ephedrine was located in two small bags in the shed area.

[10] The National Clandestine Laboratory Team observed that the clandestine laboratory was the largest commercial clandestine laboratory they had processed that calendar year.

[11] Numerous containers with small amounts of methamphetamine, small snaplock bags, electronic scales, and measuring straws were located at the scene. Product…

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 McQuade

Details

AGLC: R v McQuade [2022] NZHC 559
Case: [2022] NZHC 559
Decision Date: 25 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alan Clinton McQuade was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, supplying methamphetamine, participating in an organised criminal group and possessing material for the manufacture of methamphetamine. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for each of these charges, taking into account the principles and purposes of sentencing, as well as any aggravating or mitigating factors. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offending, including the scale of the operation, the offender's role, and the harm caused to the community. The court also considered personal factors such as the offender's background, addiction, and prospects of rehabilitation. After weighing all the factors, the court sentenced McQuade to five years and three months' imprisonment for manufacturing methamphetamine, two years and six months' imprisonment for participating in an organised criminal group, and 15 months' imprisonment for possessing material for the manufacture of methamphetamine. These sentences were to be served concurrently, and the court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of 25 months. The court also considered the effect of COVID-19 on the sentencing process, but did not grant a discrete discount for this factor. Overall, the court aimed to balance the need for denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community with the offender's personal circumstances and prospects of rehabilitation.

Orders