R v Reid

Case [2014] NZHC 426 11 March 2014

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-090-1734 [2014] NZHC 426

THE QUEEN

v

SCOTT DAVID REID

Hearing: 11 March 2014

Appearances:

A Boberg for the Crown
H P Retzlaff for the Defendant

Judgment:

11 March 2014

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors:
Ms A Boberg, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Mr H P Retzlaff, Waitakere Community Law Service, Henderson, Auckland

R v REID [2014] NZHC 426 [11 March 2014]

[1] Mr Reid, you may remain seated in the meantime. When I come to impose the sentence you will need to stand.

[2] As you know, you are to be sentenced for four offences to which you pleaded guilty. These are offences against the Misuse of Drugs Act relating to the class C controlled drug BZP which is an analogue, I understand, of the class B controlled drug ecstasy. The offences are supplying the drug between June and October 2011, offering to supply it between June and July 2011, conspiring with others to supply it between May and November 2011 and producing it between August 2012 and February 2013. I will come in a moment to that significant difference in dates.

[3] Mr Reid, as I mentioned to your counsel, these are serious offences and it needs to be acknowledged and emphasised at the outset that they are. The maximum penalty for those offences, other than the conspiracy, is 8 years imprisonment for a sentence imposed in this Court. The maximum penalty for the conspiracy is 7 years imprisonment. And you should reflect on that.

[4] I will need to explain the sentence to be imposed on you. I need to explain it particularly to you, but it also needs to be explained for the benefit of the community as a whole. But I do want to emphasise to you at the beginning – or make clear to you at the beginning – that the sentence I will impose is, in fact, one of home detention. I have said that so that you do understand at the outset. But I do want you please to listen to what I have to say.

Summary of facts

[5] Your offences were committed with at least three other men. The prosecution of the other men is proceeding, so what I am recording in relation to the others is what the Crown alleges, and what you have admitted in relation to your own offending.

[6] On the basis of the Police summary of facts to which you pleaded guilty, the principal offender in your group was [Mr D]. [He] got pills containing BZP, amongst other things (and I infer amongst other types of controlled drugs), from

gang members. [Mr D] then supplied these pills to you and your other co-offenders for on-sale.

[7] Between the dates referred to above – and I am simply summarising things:

(a) You supplied 447 pills in 23 transactions and in quantities ranging from one to 100 pills;

(b) You offered to supply 851 pills…

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 Reid

Details

AGLC: R v Reid [2014] NZHC 426
Case: [2014] NZHC 426
Decision Date: 11 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with sentencing Scott David Reid for four drug-related offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Reid had pleaded guilty to supplying, offering to supply, conspiring to supply, and producing a class C controlled drug, BZP, between June 2011 and February 2013. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences, with the maximum penalty for each offence being 8 years imprisonment and 7 years for conspiracy. The court highlighted that Reid's actions involved mid-level commercial drug dealing and that the offending was dangerous.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the severity of the offences and the mitigating factors presented by Reid's personal circumstances. The court considered Reid's age, lack of prior convictions, genuine remorse, and positive personal developments, such as his efforts to address substance abuse and establish a stable life with his partner and their unborn child. The court also took into account Reid's full cooperation with the police and his expressed desire to lead a constructive life.

The court calculated a starting point of 3 years 6 months imprisonment for the offences, considering the totality of Reid's criminal conduct. It then applied a substantial reduction of 15 months to account for Reid's mitigating factors, resulting in a reduced starting point of 27 months. After further reducing the sentence by 25% for Reid's guilty pleas, the court determined that a prison sentence of 20 months was appropriate. However, given that the sentence was 2 years or less, the court opted for a sentence of home detention instead, concluding that home detention of 12 months with 200 hours of community work was suitable. This decision balanced the need for accountability and deterrence with the benefits of rehabilitation and the positive personal developments Reid had made.

In conclusion, Scott David Reid was sentenced to 12 months of home detention and 200 hours of community work, with specific conditions to abstain from controlled drugs and alcohol unless approved by his probation officer and a counsellor.

Orders