R v Saggers - [2013] NZHC 1169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2008-090-4576 [2013] NZHC 1169

THE QUEEN

v

DAVID GEORGE SAGGERS

Hearing: 20 May 2013

Counsel: Mr K Glubb for Crown
Mr R M Mansfield for Accused

Judgment: 21 May 2013 at 9.30 am

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WHITE J (DISPUTED FACTS HEARING)

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Meredith Connell, PO Box 2213, Auckland Kevin.Glubb@meredithconnell.co.nz
Mr R M Mansfield, PO Box 2674, Auckland ron.mansfield@22lorne.co.nz

R v SAGGERS HC AK CRI-2008-090-4576 [21 May 2013]

Introduction

[1] On 24 March 2010 I sentenced Mr Saggers to 12 years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of six years on the lead offence of manufacturing methamphetamine with concurrent sentences for ten other offences.

[2] The sentence was imposed after Mr Saggers pleaded guilty to eleven charges, namely:

(a) two charges of possessing materials for the manufacture of methamphetamine;

(b)one charge of possessing equipment for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine;

(c) two charges of possessing precursors for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine;

(d) one charge of possessing a pistol;

(e) one charge of possessing a restricted weapon; (f) two charges of possessing explosives;
(g)one representative charge of manufacturing methamphetamine between 31 May 2003 and 5 December 2007.

(h)one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine to another between the 31 May 2003 and 5 December 2007; and

[3] Mr Saggers pleaded guilty to charges (a)–(f) prior to the start of his trial on

15 February 2010 and, on the fourth day of his trial, pleaded guilty to the two representative charges in (g) and (h).

[4] On receipt of the sentencing submissions for the Crown and Mr Saggers, it appeared that Mr Saggers was taking issue with the Crown’s description of the “aggravating features” relating to the scale of his operations and the period of offending, the presence of ammunition and weapons and harm to a visiting child.

[5] As required by s 24(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002, I therefore issued a minute dated 23 March 2010 indicating to the parties the weight that would be likely to be attached to the disputed facts if they were found to exist and their significance to the sentence.

[6] In the minute I stated:

[6] I indicate that I would give considerable weight to the following disputed facts which would be of particular significance to the sentence in this case in putting the case well within Band 3 in R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR
72 (CA) –

(a) The ContacNT found at the accused’s house could have
yielded between 100 and 300 grams of methamphetamine.

(b) The equipment, the precursors and the $253,720.00 found further supports the conclusion that it was a large scale commercial enterprise.

(c) It was an ongoing concern from 31 May 2003 to 5 December
2007, a period of four years and seven months.

(d) The presence of ammunition and weapons related to the operation.

[7] Subject to any further evidence which the defence may wish to adduce, I would propose to take into account in addition to…

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 Saggers

Details

AGLC: R v Saggers [2013] NZHC 1169
Case: [2013] NZHC 1169
Decision Date: 21 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Saggers, the defendant appealed against his sentence, arguing that his former counsel had failed to advise him of his right to dispute facts by giving and calling evidence at a disputed facts hearing under section 24(2) of the Sentencing Act. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the High Court to determine the disputed facts and resentence the defendant. The High Court conducted a disputed facts hearing and found that the prosecution had proved the existence of the disputed aggravating facts beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant's involvement in the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine was not as limited as he claimed, and his explanations for the possession of precursor substances and cash were implausible and unconvincing. The court proposed to proceed to sentence the defendant on a basis similar to that it adopted on 24 March 2010, with the possibility of reviewing the 15% allowance for guilty pleas, remorse, and cooperation with the police.

Orders