R v Minns - [2021] NZHC 638

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2019-085-001094

[2021] NZHC 638

THE QUEEN

v

STEVEN PAUL MINNS

Hearing: 26 March 2021

Counsel:

T G Bain for the Crown

N Tahana & J Judge for Mr Minns

Sentencing:

26 March 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF GWYN J

Introduction

[1] Steven Paul Minns, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to three charges in total: one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply;1 one charge of possession of methamphetamine,2 and one charge of possession of cannabis.3

[2] You came before me for a sentence indication on 4 February 2021.4 I indicated a maximum end sentence of two years, 11 months’ imprisonment. At that time I did not have all relevant reports before me that might indicate whether a further discount is warranted.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a) and Crimes Act 1961, s 66; maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Section 7(1)(a) and (2); maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or $1,000 fine.
3      Section 7(1)(a) and (2); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $500 fine.
4      R v Minns [2021] NZHC 93.

R v MINNS [2021] NZHC 638 [26 March 2021]

[3]You accepted that sentence indication and pleaded guilty on 9 February 2021.

[4] As well an alcohol and drug assessment dated 8 April 2020, I now have a Provision of Advice to Courts (PAC) report dated 17 March 2021, and a s 27 Cultural Report from Dr Jarrod Gilbert and others dated February 2021. These reports have given me more relevant information to decide on a final sentence. I emphasise at the outset that your sentence will not be higher than the two years, 11 months I indicated in February, so please do not worry about that; the reports have the effect of allowing me to arrive at a lower sentence.

[5] Although you heard the comments I made in my sentence indication in February, I will repeat those comments which explain the way in which I reach the sentence. Because sentencing is a public function, I will also describe the background factors that are relevant to the sentencing process.

[6] When Judges look at a case, they do not simply pluck a sentence out of thin air. There is a law called the Sentencing Act 2002. That law sets out the principles and purposes of sentencing.5 In each case, a Judge looks at the Sentencing Act, and then looks at what the offender has done and decides how to give effect to the Sentencing Act in the particular circumstances of the case.

[7] The purpose of sentencing in your case is to hold you accountable for the harm you have done to the community through your offending; to promote a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgment of, that harm; to denounce and deter the criminal conduct; to protect the community; and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into society.6

[8] That is a lot of…

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 Minns

Details

AGLC: R v Minns [2021] NZHC 638
Case: [2021] NZHC 638
Decision Date: 26 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court of New Zealand was R v Minns, where Steven Paul Minns was sentenced for possession of methamphetamine for supply, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of cannabis. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence considering Minns' role in the drug supply chain, his personal circumstances, and the mitigating factors that could influence his culpability. The legal issues included determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence based on the quantity of drugs and Minns' role, and applying discounts for his guilty plea, personal mitigating factors, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court reasoned that Minns played a lesser role in the drug operation, motivated primarily by his addiction rather than substantial financial gain. Considering his traumatic upbringing, addiction, and commitment to rehabilitation, the court decided not to apply an uplift for previous convictions and instead applied discounts totalling approximately 30 per cent. The final sentence was two years' imprisonment, with special conditions for his release to facilitate his rehabilitation. The court also ordered the destruction of drug-related items and the disclosure of the cultural report to the Probation Service.

Orders