R v Piddeck - [2017] NZHC 1016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-000396 [2017] NZHC 1016

THE QUEEN

v

ANDREW TERRENCE PIDDECK

Hearing: 16 May 2017

Appearances:

B R Northwood for Crown
J C L Dixon for Prisoner

Date:

16 May 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF COURTNEY J

R v PIDDECK [2017] NZHC 1016 [16 May 2017]

[1] Andrew Terrence Piddeck, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of manufacturing methamphetamine,1 one of possession of a precursor substance,2 one charge of possessing material for manufacturing methamphetamine3 and one charge of possessing equipment for manufacturing methamphetamine.4

The offending

[2] Your offending was identified in the course of a wider police investigation into the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine. This investigation involved covert electronic surveillance and you came to the attention of the Police through your communications with those already under investigation. On 26 January 2016 the Police intercepted communications in which you discussed manufacturing methamphetamine. The next day you were observed purchasing hydrochloric acid and a still and have admitted to manufacturing methamphetamine on 26 and 27
January 2016.

[3] On 31 March 2016 the Police executed a warrant at your address in Hamilton. There they found the following precursor substances, equipment and materials: approximately 375 mls of hypophosphorous acid; two 3.4 kilogram containers of calcium chloride; a two kilogram container of sodium hydroxide; a steam distiller; a 500 ml glass beaker; a coffee grinder; a distillation condensor, a 1- litre container of hydrochloric acid; a 5-litre container of hydrochloric acid and a metal cylinder with a screw thread containing the reaction mixture from the manufacture of methamphetamine.

Sentencing

[4] In sentencing I am going to start with the charge of manufacturing methamphetamine, which is the most serious of course. In sentencing on this charge
the primary objective is deterrence and denunciation. The manufacturing of

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(b); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 12A(2)(b); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 12A(2)(a); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 12A(2)(a); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.

methamphetamine is a serious crime that affects individuals and society as a whole and I know from the letter that you have given me today that you understand this only too well. I am required to apply the principles that are set out in the Sentencing Act 2002 including taking into account the gravity of the offending, the offender’s culpability,seriousness of the offences as indicated by the maximum penalty.

[5] Judges sentencing on methamphetamine offences are also assisted by the Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Fatu5 which identified appropriate starting points for the manufacturing of methamphetamine based on the amount of the drug manufactured. In this case the precise amount of methamphetamine that you manufactured is not known, but counsel are agreed that the situation falls within what is known as band 2 of Fatu which relates to the manufacturing of up…

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 Piddeck

Details

AGLC: R v Piddeck [2017] NZHC 1016
Case: [2017] NZHC 1016
Decision Date: 16 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Piddeck, the defendant, Andrew Terrence Piddeck, appeared for sentencing after pleading guilty to multiple drug-related charges, including manufacturing methamphetamine, possessing precursor substances, and possessing materials and equipment for manufacturing methamphetamine. The charges stemmed from a police investigation into methamphetamine manufacturing and supply, during which Piddeck's communications and activities were monitored. On 26 January 2016, police intercepted communications in which Piddeck discussed manufacturing methamphetamine, and on 27 January 2016, he was observed purchasing hydrochloric acid and a still. A warrant was executed at Piddeck's address on 31 March 2016, where various precursor substances, equipment, and materials were found.

The primary legal issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Piddeck's manufacturing of methamphetamine. The court was required to consider the gravity of the offending, Piddeck's culpability, and the seriousness of the offences, as indicated by the maximum penalty. The court also needed to decide whether the manufacturing operation was sophisticated or commercial, which would affect the starting point for sentencing. Additionally, the court had to consider Piddeck's previous convictions, his remorse, and his guilty plea in determining the final sentence.

The court decided that Piddeck's manufacturing operation was not sophisticated or commercial, as evidenced by the fact that he did not have all the necessary equipment and ingredients at the outset. The court accepted the defence's argument that the manufacturing was for personal use only. The court also determined that an appropriate starting point for the manufacturing charge was five years' imprisonment, taking into account the totality of the offending and relevant case law. Piddeck's previous convictions were not considered relevant for sentencing purposes, as the court regarded his relevant offending as having ceased in 2003. The court granted a 10 per cent discount for remorse and a 25 per cent discount for Piddeck's guilty plea. The final sentence for the manufacturing charge was three years and five months' imprisonment, with concurrent sentences of 18 months for the remaining charges, making the total sentence three years and five months.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Piddeck to three years and five months' imprisonment for manufacturing methamphetamine, with concurrent sentences for the other charges, taking into account the nature of the offending, Piddeck's culpability, and relevant case law. The court also considered Piddeck's previous convictions, remorse, and guilty plea in determining the final sentence. The court urged Piddeck to seek further psychological help and make efforts to get back on an even keel.

Orders