R v Richardson - [2017] NZHC 1970

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2017-404-000168 [2017] NZHC 1970

THE QUEEN

v

KENNETH CHARLES RICHARDSON

Hearing: 17 August 2017

Counsel:

BR Northwood for Crown
IM Brookie and CW Farquhar for Defendant

Judgment:

17 August 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland.
IM Brookie, Auckland. CW Farquhar, Auckland.

R v RICHARDSON [2017] NZHC 1970 [17 August 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Richardson, you are for sentence in relation to a single charge of manufacturing methamphetamine between 18 November 2015 and 31 March 2016. You pleaded guilty on the morning of trial having foreshadowed a guilty plea was likely.

Facts

[2] Your offending was detected by a Police inquiry directed at others engaged in the supply of ephedrine, supply of materials used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and the supply and manufacture of that drug. Police discovered you were in frequent contact with one of the men in the enterprise who, on occasions, also came to your home. You were also acquainted with another man in the enterprise. On 17 December 2015 he was in contact with your partner.

[3] On 31 April 2016 Police executed a search warrant at your home. You were home, as was your partner. Police found a number of items used in connection with the manufacture of methamphetamine:

(a) Steel pots, safe sharp containers, and a one litre container of hydrochloric acid (all in a cardboard box in the loft).

(b)A hotplate, glassware, a pH metre, and a tupperware box containing a number of snaplock bags with crystalline residue (all in a cardboard box in the lounge).

(c) A steel funnel and length of clear tube (both in your car).

(d)A pH metre box, a pyrex baking dish, a one litre bottle labelled acetone, and an oven dish.

[4] Methamphetamine was found on the pyrex baking dish, hotplate and in the bottle labelled acetone. Methamphetamine and by-products of that drug’s manufacture were found on the funnel and the oven dish. Analysis established the

pH metre box had been used in connection with the manufacture of methamphetamine. Liquid in an Absolut vodka bottle contained that drug. And, that liquid is typically produced during the final stage of the manufacturing process.

[5] It is not known how much methamphetamine you made. It is agreed you did so once.

[6] You exercised your right to silence.

Starting point

[7] It is common ground your offending sits toward the bottom of band two of R v Fatu.1 Only one year separates the parties: the Crown advances a starting point of five years’ imprisonment; Mr Brookie, your lawyer, advances a starting point of four years’ imprisonment.

[8] You told the pre-sentence report writer you manufactured methamphetamine exclusively for your own use. You said that since being diagnosed with terminal cancer approximately three years ago, you became depressed. I will return to this topic shortly. You said you made methamphetamine in this context.

[9] The Crown contends your offending had at least a commercial element, by…

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 Richardson

Details

AGLC: R v Richardson [2017] NZHC 1970
Case: [2017] NZHC 1970
Decision Date: 17 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of The Queen v Kenneth Charles Richardson was heard on August 17, 2017. The defendant, Kenneth Charles Richardson, was charged with manufacturing methamphetamine between November 18, 2015, and March 31, 2016. Richardson pleaded guilty to the charge on the morning of the trial, having foreshadowed a likely guilty plea the week prior. The case involved a police investigation into the supply and manufacture of methamphetamine, leading to a search warrant being executed at Richardson's home on April 31, 2016. During the search, various items related to methamphetamine manufacturing were found, including chemicals, equipment, and the drug itself. The court had to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing and whether there were any aggravating or mitigating factors to consider.

The primary legal issue was the starting point for sentencing, with the Crown advocating for a five-year imprisonment term and the defense suggesting four years. The court also needed to decide if Richardson's offending had a commercial element, as this would impact the sentencing. Additionally, the court had to evaluate mitigating factors such as Richardson's guilty plea, his ill health, and his previous criminal history. The court found that while some of the manufactured methamphetamine might have been for personal use, there was evidence of commercial activity due to Richardson's connections with others in the methamphetamine enterprise. Given the similarities to previous offenses committed 13 years earlier, the court decided not to increase the starting point based on past criminal behavior. Regarding mitigating factors, the court accepted that Richardson had lung cancer and was experiencing symptoms of depression, warranting a 15% discount for his health condition. The court also acknowledged Richardson's guilty plea, awarding a 15% discount for this factor. After applying these discounts, the court sentenced Richardson to 35 months' imprisonment.

In summary, the court determined that the appropriate starting point for sentencing was five years, taking into account the commercial element of Richardson's offending. The mitigating factors of his guilty plea and ill health resulted in a final sentence of 35 months' imprisonment, reflecting a balance between punishment and consideration of Richardson's personal circumstances.

Orders