R v Nuttall - [2012] NZHC 91

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2009-063-5375 [2012] NZHC 91

THE QUEEN

v

TAIOPERUA NUTTALL

Appearances: S Simmers for the Crown
C Horsley for the Prisoner

Sentence: 3 February 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF PRIESTLEY J

Counsel:
S Simmers, Crown Solicitor, Rotorua. Email: Simon.simmers@gordonpilditch.co.nz
C Horsley, Adams & Horsley, Tauranga. Email: admin1@adamshorsley.co.nz

R V NUTTALL HC ROT CRI-2009-063-5375 [3 February 2012]

[1] Mr Nuttall, I am sentencing you today on a large number of charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. I have had a helpful dialogue with counsel during which I have indicated to them the sort of sentence I have in mind. Both counsel agree that the end sentences which I am going to impose on you today are appropriate. To that extent, although I have read and considered fully counsel’s submissions, it has not been necessary for counsel to supplement those submissions orally in any significant way.

[2] You appear for sentence on seven counts of possession of methamphetamine for supply, three counts of conspiring to supply methamphetamine, four counts of supplying methamphetamine, one count of offering to supply methamphetamine, and one count of possession of cannabis for purposes of supply.

[3] Three of those methamphetamine categories carry maximum penalties of life imprisonment. Conspiring to supply methamphetamine carries a maximum of 14 years imprisonment. The charge of possession of cannabis for the purposes of supply carries a maximum of eight years imprisonment.

[4] And although, Mr Nuttal, I am not going to send you to jail for life you need to reflect on the fact that a prescribed maximum penalty of life imprisonment for methamphetamine offending indicates that Parliament, on behalf of the community, takes a very dim view of people who traffic in this pernicious drug. That is what you did. And as a previous user of methamphetamine you should have been well aware of the effect of that drug on others, particularly those to whom you were supplying it. I say to you this morning that if on your release from jail you reappear in any shape or form offending under the Misuse of Drugs Act you will be dealt with even more severely than is the case today.

[5] On all those counts, 16 in number, you pleaded guilty on the second day of your trial in this Court on 3 May 2011.

[6] I do not wish to say much about the nature of your offending. You were the subject of a police intercept and surveillance operation. Your co-offender in part was a Ms Turner. When a vehicle driven by you and occupied by Ms Turner was stopped in the early hours of the morning on 19 September 2009 various incriminating items were found in the vehicle. This included some 41 grams of cannabis found in the boot. There were also cash, cellphones, scales, and all the other indicia of a drug dealer. Your home was subsequently searched. An analysis of intercept operations, which has resulted in the agreed summary…

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 Nuttall

Details

AGLC: R v Nuttall [2012] NZHC 91
Case: [2012] NZHC 91
Decision Date: 3 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Nuttall involved the sentencing of Taiopreua Nuttall on a range of drug-related charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Nuttall faced seven counts of possession of methamphetamine for supply, three counts of conspiring to supply methamphetamine, four counts of supplying methamphetamine, one count of offering to supply methamphetamine, and one count of possession of cannabis for purposes of supply. The court was required to consider the maximum penalties for these offences, which included potential life imprisonment for some of the methamphetamine charges. The key legal issues involved determining the appropriate sentence, taking into account the aggravating factors of the offending, the mitigating factors, and the principles of totality and proportionality.

The court considered the nature and scale of Nuttall’s drug trafficking activities, noting the significant quantities of methamphetamine involved and the level of commerciality and planning. It also examined Nuttall's personal circumstances, including his criminal history, his compliance with bail conditions, and his affiliation with the Mongrel Mob gang. The court did not give credit for Nuttall’s late guilty plea as it was deemed too late in the proceedings. The Crown suggested a starting point of around 6½ years imprisonment, and the defence proposed a lower starting point. The court ultimately determined a starting point of 6½ years, adjusted for the 12 months Nuttall had spent on restrictive electronic monitoring bail, resulting in a total sentence of 5½ years imprisonment. This sentence was to be applied concurrently across the various charges.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of 5½ years imprisonment for each of the seven counts of possession of methamphetamine for supply, three years for each of the three counts of conspiring to supply methamphetamine, 5½ years for all four counts of supplying methamphetamine, three years for the one count of offering to supply methamphetamine, and 18 months for the one count of possession of cannabis for supply. All terms of imprisonment were to be served concurrently, and no specific programmes were recommended, although Nuttall was free to participate in any offered programmes if he wished.

Orders