R v Muir - [2016] NZHC 2447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2015-019-6211 [2016] NZHC 2447

THE QUEEN

v

ANNA MERIANNE MUIR

Hearing: 14 October 2016

Counsel:

J N Foster for Crown
M J Dyhrberg QC and P Barrowclough for Defendant

Judgment:

14 October 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Counsel:
M J Dyhrberg QC, Auckland
P Barrowclough, Auckland

R v MUIR [2016] NZHC 2447 [14 October 2016]

Introduction

[1] Anna Merianne Muir, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty, following a sentence indication given on 12 August 2016,1 to representative charges of supplying the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine, offering to supply methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine for supply and possessing the Class C controlled drug cannabis for supply. Your guilty pleas were entered on 20
September 2016.

[2] You were remanded for sentence on 7 October 2016. At that time, further information was provided to the presiding Judge that was relevant to your mitigating circumstances. As a result your sentencing was deferred until today. As the Judge who conducted the sentence indication, I was asked to preside.

[3] I have now read the additional information provided. Having heard from your counsel in open Court and read the relevant submissions, I now proceed to sentence you on the charges to which you have pleaded guilty.

[4] The lead offence for sentencing purposes is that of supplying methamphetamine. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

Facts

[5] Your offending was identified as a result of a covert Police operation known as Operation Daydream. That was an investigation into alleged drug offending in rural areas surrounding Te Aroha and Paeroa. The investigation began in August
2015 and was terminated on 4 November 2015.

[6] You have acknowledged that in the period between 1 January and 4

November 2015 you were involved in the prolific supply of methamphetamine. You worked together with an alleged co-offender. Regularly, you obtained for distribution methamphetamine in quantities of two ounces, one ounce and half an ounce from a variety of sources. You distributed the drug for financial reward in
both wholesale and retail quantities.

1 R v Muir [2016] NZHC 1874.

[7] Joint purchases would be divided into agreed amounts so that you were each in a position to supply the drug independently to third parties. While you pooled resources on many occasions with your alleged co-offender, you each engaged in your own independent sales. You would keep the proceeds of sale of such sales, but the two of split the proceeds from joint enterprise transactions.

[8] During the Police operation, four separate cellular telephone numbers were identified that you had used in the period between 1 July and 4 November 2015. Analysis of back-captured text messages for the period between 29 July and 13
October 2015 revealed that, either jointly with your alleged co-offender or separately, you obtained 245 grams of methamphetamine for supply. In the period between 14 October and 4 November 2015, a further 284 grams was sourced, on the…

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 Muir

Details

AGLC: R v Muir [2016] NZHC 2447
Case: [2016] NZHC 2447
Decision Date: 14 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Anna Merianne Muir appeared for sentencing after pleading guilty to various drug-related charges, including the supply of the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine, offering to supply methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine for supply, and possessing the Class C controlled drug cannabis for supply. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry. The central issue for the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Muir's drug-related activities, considering the severity and nature of the crimes, as well as any mitigating factors.

The court had to decide on the starting point for sentencing based on the gravity of the drug offenses, which involved significant quantities of methamphetamine supplied over several months. It was also necessary to consider the mitigating factors presented, such as Muir's personal background, remorse, and cooperation with authorities, as well as the appropriateness of a minimum non-parole period. The court found that the supply of methamphetamine placed the case in the very serious category, with a starting point of 10 years and six months imprisonment. Given the additional context that Muir was on bail and serving community work for other offenses, an uplift of six months was considered appropriate, making the adjusted starting point 11 years imprisonment.

After considering all mitigating factors, the court decided to give significant credit for Muir's remorse, efforts at rehabilitation, and strict bail conditions. The court also acknowledged her cooperation with the authorities. The court granted a total credit of three years and three months, along with a 20% credit for her guilty pleas, resulting in a final sentence of six years and two months imprisonment. The court also imposed a minimum non-parole period of 50% of the effective sentence, which translates to three years and one month imprisonment. The court emphasized the importance of Muir redeeming herself and leading a constructive life post-sentence.

Orders