R v Rose - [2013] NZHC 1380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-054-860 [2013] NZHC 1380

THE QUEEN

v

JOLENE ROSE

Hearing: 11 June 2013
(Heard at Wellington)

Counsel: D J Flinn for the Crown
P Knowlsey for Ms Rose

Sentence: 11 June 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF GODDARD J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Palmerston North
Counsel: P Knowsley, PO Box 5289, Wellington 6145

R v ROSE [2013] NZHC 1380 [11 June 2013]

[1] Joelene Rose you appear for sentence on 23 charges arising from a major methamphetamine dealing operation conducted by you over a considerable period of time. You were found guilty by a jury on 22 of those charges and you pleaded guilty to one charge part way through the trial. The 23 counts comprised a representative charge of engaging in an on-going enterprise of selling methamphetamine over the period 6 August 2008 to 20 March 2012 (that is, a period of more than three and a half years); possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply on or before
20 March 2012 (3.5 grams); possession of cannabis for the purpose of supply on or before 20 March 2012 (5 ounces); and 20 charges of unlawful possession of firearms, restricted weapons and ammunition located at your property. Some of those firearms were loaded.

Offence Section Maximum penalty Result
Misuse of

Supplying methamphetamine

Possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of supply

Possession of

Drugs Act

1975, s 6(1)(c) and s 66 Crimes Act 1961

Misuse of

Drugs Act

1975, s 6(1)(f) and (c) Misuse of

Life imprisonment Guilty

cannabis for the purposes of supply

Unlawful possession of a firearm x 15
Unlawful possession of a restricted weapon x
1

Unlawful possession of ammunition x 3

Drugs Act

1975, 6(1)(f)

and (e)

Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b)

Arms Act 1983, S 45(1)(b)

8 years maximum

imprisonment

4 years maximum imprisonment or $5000 fine

Guilty Guilty Guilty

Guilty

Circumstances of the offending

[2] On 20 March 2012, police executed a search warrant at your home, situated about three kilometres out of Woodville in a quiet rural environment. While the house appeared to be an ordinary, quite non-descript dwelling from the outside, on

closer examination it was highly secured in a manner designed to protect and facilitate your drug dealing operation. Across the entrance to the driveway was a light beam that sounded a buzzer in the master bedroom. Affixed to the outside of the front of the house was a CCTV camera. Three monitors inside the house were connected to that CCTV camera. One was in the master bedroom on the wall opposite the bed. Another was in the dining/family room and yet another was in the lounge. In the dining/family room there was also a police scanner which was turned on. Beside this scanner was a list of registration numbers for unmarked police vehicles in the Palmerston North, Fielding and Dannevirke districts.

[3]…

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 Rose

Details

AGLC: R v Rose [2013] NZHC 1380
Case: [2013] NZHC 1380
Decision Date: 11 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, Jolene Rose, was found guilty of 22 charges and pleaded guilty to one charge of engaging in a methamphetamine dealing operation over a period of more than three and a half years. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the nature and severity of her crimes, her role in the operation, and her personal circumstances. The court determined that a starting point of 19 years imprisonment was appropriate for the methamphetamine supply charges, and an additional uplift of one year was added for the firearms charges, resulting in a total starting point of 20 years imprisonment. After considering aggravating and mitigating factors, the court decided on a final sentence of 20 years imprisonment with a minimum term of 10 years. The court also sentenced the defendant for possession of cannabis and methamphetamine for the purpose of supply, and imposed a forfeiture order for the cash found at the defendant's property. In addition, the court imposed a concurrent sentence of two years imprisonment for the firearms charges and six months imprisonment for benefit fraud.

The key legal issues in this case were the appropriate starting point for the methamphetamine supply charges, the additional uplift for the firearms charges, and the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the final sentence. The court relied on previous cases and the principles and purposes of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act to arrive at its decision. The court emphasized the seriousness of the defendant's offending, her role as a major distributor in the methamphetamine supply chain, and the need to hold her accountable for the harm caused to the community by her actions. The court also considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including her previous convictions, her role in the operation, and her limited remorse for her offending.

Orders