Legal Research
Cases
R v Mingsisouphanh

R v Mingsisouphanh

Case [2018] NZHC 532 26 March 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-004-002723

[2018] NZHC 532

THE QUEEN

v

THAMMANOUN MINGSISOUPHANH

Hearing: 26 March 2018

Appearances:

F Culliney for Crown

A Holland for Defendant

Judgment:

26 March 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland Counsel: A Holland, Auckland

R v MINGSISOUPHANH [2018] NZHC 532 [26 March 2018]

[1] Mr Minsisouphanh you have pleaded guilty to a number of serious drug offences. You have pleaded guilty to possession of material (t-boc methamphetamine) with intent to manufacture methamphetamine; possessing equipment with intent to manufacture methamphetamine; conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine; possession of ephedrine for supply; and possession of cocaine for supply.

[2] You are for sentence this morning following your acceptance of a sentence indication of the Court. At the outset Mr Holland sought an adjournment to enable you to attend a residential course at Odyssey House to address a gambling addiction. After hearing from counsel I declined that request. I did so for a number of reasons. There was no mention of such an addiction in the pre-sentence report and it was not a matter you raised. However, I accept from counsel that that is an issue and that you do have a gambling addiction. Notwithstanding that, the offer of a place in Odyssey House is not yet confirmed, and even if was, given the lengthy term of imprisonment that you will face the Court would not necessarily be prepared to grant bail for you to attend the course. Given the length of term of imprisonment you face there is a real risk of flight, particularly because you have no connection with New Zealand at all. You have real incentives to leave the country. Further, given the lengthy term of imprisonment that you face such a course could be undertaken at a more appropriate time during the course of your sentence if it is still necessary. It is not a case where completion of such a course at this stage would make a marked difference to the sentence the Court will impose.

[3] The background to your offending is this. On 14 January 2017 a consignment of cargo containing an estimated 160 litres of t-boc methamphetamine, labelled as dishwashing liquid, left Hong Kong. It arrived in New Zealand on 28 January 2017. A Customs examination revealed the t-boc methamphetamine. T-boc is added to methamphetamine that has already been manufactured to mask the methamphetamine. It can be removed through a chemical process enabling the remainder to be supplied as methamphetamine. Environmental Science and Research (ESR) estimate that with the addition of hydrochloric acid and the completion of an evaporation process the 160 litres seized was capable of producing 46 kgs of pure methamphetamine.

[4] A controlled delivery was made. On 18 February 2017 you and a co-offender, Mr Wong, uplifted the consignment and put it into storage in a storage unit at New Lynn. You had rented the storage unit the previous day.

[5]…

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 Mingsisouphanh

Details

AGLC: R v Mingsisouphanh [2018] NZHC 532
Case: [2018] NZHC 532
Decision Date: 26 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thammanoun Mingsisouphanh, the defendant, pleaded guilty to several drug-related charges, including possession of material (t-boc methamphetamine) with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, possessing equipment with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of ephedrine for supply, and possession of cocaine for supply. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, heard the case on 26 March 2018. The defendant was sentenced following acceptance of a sentence indication from the Court.

The primary legal issues involved determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant's involvement in a sophisticated drug manufacturing and supply conspiracy. The Court had to consider the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002, including deterrence, denunciation, and the defendant's personal circumstances. The Court also had to decide on an appropriate minimum non-parole period for the sentence.

The Court, in its reasoning, first evaluated the defendant's active and central role in the drug conspiracy, noting the level of sophistication and planning involved. The Court determined a starting point for the methamphetamine charge in the region of 12½ years, 10 to 11 years for the cocaine charge, and five to six years for the ephedrine charge. Considering the totality of the offending, the Court set a starting point of 18 years' imprisonment. The Court then reduced this starting point by six months to account for personal factors such as the defendant's age, lack of criminal history, and remorse, resulting in an end sentence of 14 years. However, the Court considered a 20% discount to this sentence, leading to an effective sentence of 14 years' imprisonment. The Court imposed a minimum non-parole period of 50%, amounting to seven years, to ensure sufficient deterrence and denunciation.

In conclusion, Thammanoun Mingsisouphanh was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment on the charge of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, six years for possession of cocaine for supply, four years for possession of ephedrine for supply, and two years for each charge of possession of material and equipment. All sentences were to run concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of 14 years' imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of seven years. The defendant was discharged in relation to the remaining outstanding charges.

Orders