R v Moore - [2013] NZHC 1972

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2012-092-005862 [2013] NZHC 1972

THE QUEEN

v

JOSEPH WILLIAM MOORE

Hearing: 6 August 2013

Appearances:

B R Northwood for the Crown
J D Munro for the Defendant

Date:

6 August 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

R v MOORE [2013] NZHC 1972 [6 August 2013 ]

[1] Mr Moore, you appear for sentence today, having pleaded guilty to four charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975:

(a) There is one representative charge of manufacturing the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine. That is an offence pursuant to s 6(1)(b) of the Act, and it carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

(b) There are two charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply.

That is an offence pursuant to s 6(1)(f) of the Act. Again, the maximum penalty is one of life imprisonment.

(c) There is a final charge of possession of the precursor substance, pseudoephedrine. This is an offence pursuant to s 12A(2)(b) of the Act, and it carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

[2] You were first charged, along with a number of other defendants, in June 2012. You were admitted to EM bail by Toogood J on 31 July 2012, and you have been undertaking a drug rehabilitation programme at Odyssey House since that time.

[3] You entered your guilty pleas, and convictions were entered against you, on Friday, 5 April 2013. When you entered the guilty pleas, Peters J recorded that you were to be sentenced in the week of 13 May 2013. You applied for bail afresh, to enable you to complete your rehabilitation course at Odyssey House. The Crown took a neutral stance.

[4] Initially, your application for bail was adjourned pending sentence until

9.00 am on 11 April 2013. However, on that day, Peters J granted you bail pending sentence. She was also asked to delay sentencing you until 29 July 2013, to enable you to complete the programme. Not without reservation, Peters J acceded to that course. She did record her concern at the delay in sentencing.

[5] Your sentencing has since been adjourned to today.

[6] There has been a further application for an adjournment by Mr Munro on your behalf. He sought that sentencing should be adjourned for a further period of four to six months, to enable you to complete the programme at Odyssey House. That application was opposed by Mr Northwood for the Crown.

[7] I am not prepared to adjourn the sentencing on the basis proposed by Mr Munro. The delay is simply too long. The rehabilitation you are currently receiving at Odyssey House consists of attending group therapy sessions once a week, and also participating in one-on-one therapy. The course is not as intense as it was initially. Further, as I understand it, rehabilitation courses will be available to you when you are serving a custodial sentence. I see no reason to delay sentencing any longer.

Relevant Facts

[8] On 6 June 2011, you were…

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 Moore

Details

AGLC: R v Moore [2013] NZHC 1972
Case: [2013] NZHC 1972
Decision Date: 6 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant, Joseph William Moore, appeared for sentencing following his guilty pleas to charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Moore was charged with the manufacture of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for supply, and possession of the precursor substance pseudoephedrine. The legal issues involved determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors personal to Moore, and deciding on the appropriate discounts for his early guilty pleas, remorse, and rehabilitation efforts.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, emphasizing accountability, responsibility, denunciation, and deterrence. It also noted the gravity of the offending, the degree of culpability, and the need for consistency with similar offenders. The court adopted a starting point of eight years’ imprisonment, uplifted by 12 months due to the totality of the offending. Various mitigating factors were considered, including Moore's successful rehabilitation efforts, his early guilty pleas, and his demonstrated remorse. The court allowed discounts totaling three years and nine months, resulting in a final sentence of five years and nine months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently. The court also ordered the destruction of drug-related paraphernalia seized at the various properties under Section 32 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Moore was encouraged to continue his rehabilitation efforts during his custodial sentence and to pursue his goal of becoming a therapist specializing in alcohol and drug therapy. The total finite sentence imposed was five years and nine months’ imprisonment.

Orders