R v Mene - [2014] NZHC 1404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-000108 [2014] NZHC 1404

THE QUEEN

v

ALEX MOSES MENE

Hearing: 20 June 2014

Appearances:

M Walker for Crown
M Wharepouri for Defendant

Sentenced:

20 June 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Copy to: M Wharepouri, Auckland

R v MENE [2014] NZHC 1404 [20 June 2014]

[1] Alex Mene, you are for sentence for drug offending. In April last year you pleaded guilty to a representative charge of supplying methamphetamine and a charge of possession of pre-cursor substances with the intent they be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. In April this year, following a trial in this Court, you were found guilty of possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of supply. The maximum penalty you face is life imprisonment.

[2] In relation to the offending you pleaded guilty to last year the summary of facts discloses that in the course of a police investigation into a significant drug operation, involving the manufacture of methamphetamine by Mr Moore, you were identified as being involved in a number of transactions and communications consistent with the supply of methamphetamine.

[3] On 6 June 2011 you were contacted by a person inquiring as to whether you had methamphetamine. You confirmed you did and organised to meet. The next day you contacted the same person asking whether they wanted to buy more methamphetamine. You said the price for a gram was $600. On 8 June 2011 you were again contacted by the same person requesting to buy a gram of methamphetamine.

[4] On 27 June 2011 you contacted Mr Waterman and alleged that Mr Waterman owed you methamphetamine or was in debt to you for methamphetamine. Mr Waterman did not agree. He said he owed you half an ounce of methamphetamine, which he had already repaid. On 31 July 2011 you were contacted again. You were asked for a gram of methamphetamine on loan. You agreed and gave an amount of methamphetamine you estimated as .3 of a gram.

[5] During this time you were in contact with Mr Moore regarding his manufacturing operation to ensure that your supplies were maintained. On 1 August
2011 you contacted Mr Moore to see if methamphetamine was available to be taken to Ms Guthrie. You subsequently met with Mr Moore and travelled to Ms Guthrie’s location. At about the same time, on 1 August, you were contacted and asked if you could trade a large amount of methamphetamine. You confirmed you could. The person then offered to buy an ounce of methamphetamine from you, stating that she

had $12,000 cash. You organised to meet the following morning. On 8 August 2011 you contacted Mr Moore telling him that you had money for him and his brother for allowing them to manufacture methamphetamine.

[6] On 8 August, the same day, you were contacted by a female again inquiring whether you had methamphetamine to sell. You confirmed you did. On 9 August you contacted Ms Guthrie…

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 Mene

Details

AGLC: R v Mene [2014] NZHC 1404
Case: [2014] NZHC 1404
Decision Date: 20 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Alex Moses Mene was sentenced for drug-related offenses, including supplying and possessing methamphetamine. Mene had pleaded guilty to supplying methamphetamine and possessing precursor substances, and was found guilty of possessing methamphetamine for supply. The court sentenced Mene to imprisonment terms that ran concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of four years and nine months. The legal issues centered around the appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering the totality of Mene's offenses, the amount of drugs involved, and the sentences of co-offenders in similar cases. The court determined a starting point of five years and nine months, adjusted for mitigating factors such as Mene's participation in self-improvement programs and his extended period on electronically monitored bail. However, no credit was given for remorse due to Mene's dispute over the jury's verdict on one charge. The final order was for Mene to serve an effective term of four years and nine months in prison.

Orders