R v Murray - [2013] NZHC 1383

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-054-860 [2013] NZHC 1383

THE QUEEN

v

SEAN CHRISTIAAN MURRAY

Hearing: 11 June 2013
(Heard at Wellington)

Counsel: D J Flinn for the Crown
P Surridge for Murray

Sentence: 11 June 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF GODDARD J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Palmerston North
Surridge & Co, Porirua, Wellington.

R v MURRAY [2013] NZHC 1383 [11 May 2013]

[1] Sean Murray you appear for sentence on 23 charges arising from your participation in a major methamphetamine dealing operation conducted over a considerable period of time and in which you played a role for at least a part of that time. You pleaded guilty to those charges. The 23 counts comprised a representative charge of an on-going enterprise of selling methamphetamine over the period
6 August 2008 to 20 March 2012 (your involvement was for a lesser period than that); possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply on or before
20 March 2012 (3.5 grams); possession of cannabis for the purpose of supply on or before 20 March 2012 (5 ounces); and 20 charges of unlawful possession of firearms, restricted weapons and ammunition located at the property where you lived. Some of those firearms were loaded.

Offence Section Maximum penalty Result
Misuse of

Supplying methamphetamine

Possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of supply

Possession of

Drugs Act

1975, s 6(1)(c) and s 66 Crimes Act 1961

Misuse of

Drugs Act

1975, s 6(1)(f) and (c) Misuse of

Life imprisonment Guilty

cannabis for the purposes of supply

Unlawful possession of a firearm x 15
Unlawful possession of a restricted weapon x
1

Unlawful possession of ammunition x 3

Drugs Act

1975, 6(1)(f)

and (e)

Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b)

Arms Act 1983, S 45(1)(b)

8 years maximum

imprisonment

4 years maximum imprisonment or $5000 fine

Guilty Guilty Guilty

Guilty

Circumstances of the offending

[2] On 20 March 2012, police executed a search warrant at the home you were living in with Ms Rose, situated about three kilometres out of Woodville in a quiet rural environment. While the house appeared to be an ordinary, quite non-descript

dwelling from the outside, on closer examination it was highly secured in a manner designed to protect and facilitate the major drug dealing operation Ms Rose was conducting out of it. Across the entrance to the driveway was a light beam that sounded a buzzer in the master bedroom. Affixed to the outside of the front of the house was a CCTV camera. Three monitors inside the house were connected to that CCTV camera. One was in the master bedroom on the wall opposite the bed. Another was in the dining/family room and yet another was in the lounge. In the dining/family room there was also a police scanner which was turned on. Beside this scanner was a list of registration numbers for unmarked police vehicles…

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 [2013] NZHC 1383
Case: [2013] NZHC 1383
Decision Date: 11 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Murray, Sean Christiaan Murray appeared before the court for sentencing on 23 charges related to his involvement in a methamphetamine dealing operation. Murray pleaded guilty to charges including methamphetamine supply, possession of methamphetamine and cannabis for the purpose of supply, and unlawful possession of firearms. The court heard that Murray had played a supporting role in the drug dealing operation, primarily assisting the primary offender, Ms Rose. The court took into account Murray's lesser involvement and cognitive impairments when determining his sentence.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included the starting point for sentencing, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the appropriate discount for Murray's guilty pleas. The court considered the gravity of Murray's offending, the seriousness of the drug-related offences, and the principles of sentencing. The court also considered Murray's personal circumstances, including his history of substance abuse and a severe brain injury.

The court decided to adopt a provisional starting point of 12 years for the charge of methamphetamine supply, with an additional one-year uplift for the firearms charges. The court acknowledged Murray's impaired judgment and psychological vulnerability as mitigating factors, applying a 15% discount. The court also applied a 25% discount for Murray's guilty pleas.

The final sentence imposed on Murray was eight years and six months imprisonment for the lead charge of methamphetamine supply, one year and two months imprisonment for possession of cannabis for the purpose of supply (to be served concurrently), and two and a half years imprisonment for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply (also to be served concurrently). Additionally, Murray received a two and a half-year sentence for the 20 charges of unlawful possession of firearms, to be served concurrently with the sentence for the lead charge of supply.

Orders