Legal Research
Cases
R v Murray

R v Murray

Case [2014] NZHC 1843 7 August 2014

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Manufacture of Controlled Substances

Supply of Controlled Substances

Conspiracy

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-004-18344 [2014] NZHC 1843

THE QUEEN

v

FRANK WILLIAM MURRAY CURTIS EDWARD YATES BETTY ANNE LLOYD DIONNE JEAN RUNDBERG PHILLIP BANCROFT

Charges:
Plea:

(see following page)

Not Guilty

Counsel:

BD Tantrum and RK Thomson for Crown

MM Wilkinson-Smith (on instructions from CB Wilkinson- Smith) for Murray

L Freyer and JC Harder for Yates
PL Borich for Lloyd
PJ Kaye and RAB Samuel for Rundberg
MJ Dyhrberg QC for Bancroft

Sentenced:

7 August 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors/Counsel: Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Crown
Chris Wilkinson-Smith (Auckland) for Murray
Public Defence Service (Auckland) for Yates
Paul Borich (Auckland) for Lloyd
Peter Kaye (Auckland) for Rundberg
Marie Dyhrberg QC (Auckland) for Bancroft

R v MURRAY & ORS [2014] NZHC 1843 [7 August 2014]

Frank William Murray

Count 1 Manufacturing methamphetamine

Count 5 Manufacturing methamphetamine

Count 9 Conspiracy to supply methamphetamine

Count 16 Manufacturing methamphetamine (majority verdict)

Count 20 Offering to supply methamphetamine

Count 21 Manufacturing methamphetamine

Count 24 Supplying Class B drug to Victoria Carson

Count 25 Offering to supply methamphetamine to Sarah Waugh

Count 28 Supplying methamphetamine to Brett Bogue

Count 29 Conspiracy to supply Class B drug to Victoria Carson

Count 31 Possession of equipment to manufacture methamphetamine

Count 32 Possession of equipment to manufacture methamphetamine

Count 33 Possession of material to manufacture methamphetamine

Count 34 Possession of material to manufacture methamphetamine

Count 35
Possession of precursor substance to manufacture

methamphetamine

Count 36
Possession of precursor substance to manufacture

methamphetamine

Count 37 Manufacturing methamphetamine (representative charge)

Count 39 Supplying methamphetamine (representative charge)

Betty Anne Lloyd

Count 3 Permitting premises for manufacture of methamphetamine

Count 23 Permitting premises for manufacture of methamphetamine

Count 38
Permitting premises for manufacture of methamphetamine

(representative charge)

Curtis Edward Yates

Count 21 Manufacturing methamphetamine

Count 28 Supplying methamphetamine to Brett Bogue

Dionne Jean Rundberg

Count 8 Conspiracy to supply methamphetamine

Count 14 Supplying methamphetamine to Hilton Bush

Phillip Bancroft

Count 26 Supplying methamphetamine

Introduction

[1] Mr Murray, Ms Lloyd, Mr Yates, Ms Rundberg, Mr Bancroft, you appear for sentence today having each been convicted on 27 June 2014 for drug-related offending following an eight week jury trial in Auckland.

[2] Mr Murray, you were found guilty of five counts of manufacturing the Class A drug methamphetamine, one being a representative count.1 Each of those counts exposes you to liability for life imprisonment. You were further found guilty of two counts of supplying methamphetamine, one being a representative count,2 one count of conspiring to supply methamphetamine,3 two counts of offering to supply methamphetamine,4 one count of supplying a Class B controlled drug GHB,5 one count of conspiring to supply a Class B controlled drug,6 two counts of possession of a precursor substance,7 two counts of possession of equipment,8 and two counts of possession of materials.9

[3] Ms Lloyd, you were found guilty of three counts of permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine on 30 July 2012, 5 October 2012 and on a representative…

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 Murray

Details

AGLC: R v Murray [2014] NZHC 1843
Case: [2014] NZHC 1843
Decision Date: 7 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Murray, the defendants were convicted of various drug-related charges, including manufacturing, supplying, and possessing methamphetamine, as well as permitting premises for methamphetamine manufacture. The defendants were Frank William Murray, Betty Anne Lloyd, Curtis Edward Yates, Dionne Jean Rundberg, and Phillip Bancroft. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for each defendant, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002.

The court considered the nature and extent of each defendant's involvement in the drug operation, their previous criminal records, and their personal circumstances. The court also heard submissions from both the Crown and the defence on the appropriate starting points and any discounts or uplifts that should be applied.

The court found that Frank William Murray was the leader of the drug operation and sentenced him to 19 years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of nine years. Betty Anne Lloyd was sentenced to 11 months' home detention due to her limited involvement and the recent loss of her husband. Curtis Edward Yates received a sentence of nine years and six months' imprisonment, while Dionne Jean Rundberg was sentenced to four years and five months' imprisonment. Phillip Bancroft was sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment for his involvement in supplying methamphetamine.

The court's reasoning was based on the totality of each defendant's offending, their roles in the drug operation, and the need to hold them accountable for the harm caused by their actions. The court also considered the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration into society for each defendant.

Orders