R v Norton - [2016] NZHC 1035

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-057-001428 [2016] NZHC 1035

THE QUEEN

v

CATHERINE NORTON JOHN DOUGLAS PHILIP TREVOR ROWAN

Hearing: 19 May 2016

Appearances:

J M Pridgeon for the Crown
M N Pecotic for the Defendant, Norton
P J Kaye for the Defendant, Philip
R M Mansfield and S Teppett for the Defendant, Rowan

Sentencing:

19 May 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker (Crown Solicitor), Manukau

Counsel: Ms M N Pecotic, Barrister, Auckland
Mr P Kaye, Barrister, Auckland
Mr R M Mansfield, Barrister, Auckland

R v PHILIP & ORS [2016] NZHC 1035 [19 May 2016]

Introduction

[1] Ms Norton and Mr Rowan you are here today with Mr Philip for sentence. Mr Philip is in the cells downstairs, but has refused to come to Court. He has, however, instructed his counsel, Mr Kaye, that he is content for the sentencing to precede in his absence. The reason why the three of you are for sentence today is that you were involved in a drug ring which sold or supplied methamphetamine throughout a number of South Auckland communities. Two of your co-offenders,
Mr McGarry and Mr Albert, have already been sentenced.1

(a) Ms Norton, you have pleaded guilty to one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine between 13 November 2013 and 28 May
2014 as well as one charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply.2

(b)Mr Rowan, you have pleaded guilty to one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine over the same period.

(c) Mr Philip did not plead guilty, but elected to go to trial. He was convicted at a jury trial before me on two charges of supplying methamphetamine, one of which was a representative charge between
1 January 2014 and 6 June 2014. He was also convicted of a third charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply.

[2] The maximum penalty for all of these offences is life imprisonment.3

Facts

[3] The offending in which you and Mr Philip were involved was discovered as a result of a Police operation code named “Operation Cesium”. The operation targeted the sale and supply of methamphetamine in Wiauku, Pukekohe and other South Auckland communities. It began in late 2013 and involved, among other aspects,
significant interceptions of electronic data from cell phones being used by your

1      R v McGarry [2015] NZHC 1368; R v Albert [2016] NZHC 241.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (f).
3      Section 6(2)(a).

group to co-ordinate your offending. The operation was terminated on 28 May 2014, at which point you two together with Mr Philip were arrested and charged.

[4] For you Ms Norton and Mr Rowan, I will now set out the relevant facts as they appear from the summary to which you pleaded guilty. As to Mr Philip, I will then set out the facts that relate to him and the extent of his involvement as established by the evidence at trial.

[5] Ms Norton, between 13 November 2013 and 8 May 2014 you…

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 Norton

Details

AGLC: R v Norton [2016] NZHC 1035
Case: [2016] NZHC 1035
Decision Date: 19 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the court was required to determine the appropriate sentences for three defendants, Ms Norton, Mr Rowan, and Mr Philip, who were involved in a methamphetamine drug ring. The primary legal issue was to establish the appropriate starting points for their sentences based on the nature and extent of their involvement in the drug ring, and then to adjust these starting points based on personal circumstances and any applicable discounts.

The court began by establishing a starting point for each defendant based on the quantity of methamphetamine they supplied or possessed, their role in the drug ring, and the sophistication of their operation. Ms Norton was found to be a lead offender, playing a central role in the supply chain, and her starting point was set at 12 years imprisonment. Mr Philip, as a key supplier to Ms Norton, had a starting point of nine years, while Mr Rowan, who supplied methamphetamine to the community, had a starting point of seven and a half years.

The court then adjusted the starting points based on personal circumstances. Ms Norton received discounts for her efforts at rehabilitation and remorse, while Mr Philip did not due to his lack of remorse and high likelihood of reoffending. Mr Rowan received a discount for his genuine remorse and efforts at rehabilitation. Finally, all three defendants received discounts for their guilty pleas, which amounted to 20% of their respective sentences.

The court imposed sentences of eight years and six months for Ms Norton, five years and seven months for Mr Rowan, and nine years and six months for Mr Philip. The court also ordered the forfeiture of cash and drug paraphernalia seized from Mr Rowan and ordered the destruction of all drugs and drug paraphernalia found as a result of the police operation. The more substantial amounts of cash seized from Ms Norton and Mr Philip were to be the subject of proceedings under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.

Orders