R v Moran - [2018] NZHC 3250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-092-11344

[2018] NZHC 3250

THE QUEEN

v

DUANNE JAMES MORAN

Hearing: 11 December 2018

Appearances:

K Li for Crown

N P Chisnall for Defendant

Judgment:

11 December 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v MORAN [2018] NZHC 3250 [11 December 2018]

[1] Mr Moran, you appear for sentence on a representative charge of permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine,1 and a representative charge of supplying methamphetamine.2 You entered guilty pleas after I gave you a sentence indication on 23 October 2018.3

[2] The facts on which you are to be sentenced were set out in my sentence indication and I do not propose to repeat them here. My sentence indication will be attached to these remarks and form part of them. In short, you and your partner, Ms Verdonk, permitted a person by the name of Mr Griffiths to manufacture methamphetamine at your address on 13 separate occasions between January and June 2017. In return, you received money or drugs. Mr Griffiths eventually left the address after you and Ms Verdonk expressed your displeasure at the state of the premises due to his use of them.

[3] I selected a starting point of two years nine months imprisonment on the charge of permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine. I then added an uplift of three months to reflect the fact that on several occasions you supplied methamphetamine to others. I infer that you sourced the methamphetamine from Mr Griffiths. I am also satisfied that you are likely to have used the proceeds of any sale to purchase opiates for your own use.

[4] I then reduced the sentence by nine months to reflect guilty pleas. This amounted to a reduction in the order of 25 per cent. The Crown accepted that a reduction of that order was appropriate. This left me with a sentence of two years three months imprisonment before taking into account other mitigating factors.

[5] I have now received an extremely detailed report from a psychiatrist. I have also received a helpful pre-sentence report. Both of these are consistent in stating your background and current position. You had an extremely troubled youth. You lived in a series of foster homes throughout your childhood and adolescent years. This led to

1      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 12(1) and 12(2)(a) (maximum penalty ten years imprisonment).
2      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a) (maximum penalty life imprisonment).
3      R v Griffiths, Verdonk & Moran [2018] NZHC 2733.

difficulties for you on a number of fronts. I am satisfied that it led virtually directly to the situation you now find yourself in.

[6] Disturbingly, the report confirms that you began using cannabis at about five years of age. Later on, you began using morphine and, virtually immediately, it appears you became addicted to it. I have no doubt that the difficult…

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 Moran

Details

AGLC: R v Moran [2018] NZHC 3250
Case: [2018] NZHC 3250
Decision Date: 11 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Moran concerned the sentencing of Duane James Moran for charges of permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine and supplying methamphetamine. The legal issues before the court included determining an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, and deciding on the appropriate nature of the sentence, including whether it should be imprisonment or home detention.

Lang J began by selecting a starting point of two years and nine months imprisonment for the charge of permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine, adding an uplift of three months to account for the supply charges. The court then reduced the sentence by nine months to reflect the guilty pleas, resulting in a sentence of two years and three months imprisonment before considering other mitigating factors. The court took into account Moran's troubled background, early substance abuse, and his efforts to remain drug-free and comply with bail conditions. After applying these mitigating factors, the court reduced the sentence to one year and nine months, making him eligible for home detention. The court decided that a sentence of home detention was appropriate, given Moran's compliance with bail conditions, support from his partner, and participation in a methadone program. The court sentenced Moran to ten months home detention on the charge of permitting premises to be used for manufacturing methamphetamine and three months home detention on the remaining charges, to be served concurrently, effectively resulting in a sentence of ten months home detention. The court also set specific conditions for the home detention, including requirements to remain at a nominated address and only leave for pre-approved appointments.

Orders