R v Shaw - [2015] NZHC 238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-004-005509 [2015] NZHC 238

THE QUEEN

v

PETER MATTHEW SHAW

Hearing: 20 February 2015

Appearances:

B D Tantrum for the Crown
DGA Reece for the Defendant

Sentencing:

20 February 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Counsel/Solicitors:

DGA Reece, Auckland
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v PETER MATTHEW SHAW [2015] NZHC 238 [20 February 2015]

Summary

[1] Mr Shaw, you pleaded guilty on 12 December 2014 to a series of charges, primarily revolving around the production and supply of methamphetamine. You appear today for sentencing in respect of the following charges:

(a) One charge of manufacturing the class A controlled drug, methamphetamine.1 This arises from three separate incidents on
28 February 2014, 12 March 2014 and 9 April 2014. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

(b)Two charges of possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of supply2 - one on 12 March 2014, and the other between 24 April and
7 May 2014.

(c) One charge of forgery, by creating false drivers licences on 28 March

2014.3

(d) One charge of supplying the class B controlled drug (Ephedrine) on

3 April 2014;4 and

(e) One charge of unlawful possession of a firearm.5

Facts

[2] The charges you face all follow a New Zealand Police operation entitled
Operation Genoa. The agreed summary of facts lays out the full extent of the drug manufacturing operation you were involved with.

1      This charge arises under s 6(1)(b) and 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
2      These charges arise under s 6(1)(f) and (2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
3      This charge arises under s 256(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 with a maximum sentence of three
years imprisonment.
4      This charges arises under s 6(1)(c) and 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, with a maximum penalty 14 years imprisonment.
5      This charge arises under s 45(1) Arms Act 1983, with a maximum penalty four years imprisonment or a $5000 fine.

[3] Operation Genoa began in 2013, after suspicion that you and your co- defendants were manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine caused the Police to obtain surveillance devices to monitor your actions.

[4] Mr Shaw, you manufactured methamphetamine on three occasions, although there is just the one charge. The first occasion, on 28 February 2014, produced 830 grams. An unknown amount was yielded in the second manufacture, which took place on 12 March 2014. The Police estimate that on the third occasion, on 9 April
2014, you were part of the manufacture of approximately one kilogram of methamphetamine based on the 1.8 kilograms of ephedrine used in the process. This in total is around 1.83 kilograms of methamphetamine that can be reasonably be verified.

[5] To do so, you purchased key ingredients and tools, including bags of ice to cool the reaction vessel. You transported the drugs to storage locations, and rented many of the storage locations used.

[6] When the Police…

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 Shaw

Details

AGLC: R v Shaw [2015] NZHC 238
Case: [2015] NZHC 238
Decision Date: 20 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Shaw involved the defendant, Peter Matthew Shaw, who pleaded guilty to charges including the manufacturing and supply of methamphetamine, forgery, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Shaw was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for Shaw considering the severity of the offences, his role in the drug manufacturing operation, and personal mitigating factors. The court deliberated on the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the amount of methamphetamine manufactured and the defendant's role in the operation. It also considered the additional charges and their impact on the overall sentence. The court balanced the need to denounce the offending, deter future criminal behaviour, and account for Shaw's potential for rehabilitation.

The court ultimately decided on a starting point of 14 and a half years imprisonment for the lead offence of manufacturing methamphetamine. This was adjusted upwards by nine months to account for the additional charges, resulting in a total starting point of 15 years and 3 months imprisonment. A 25 per cent discount was applied for Shaw's early guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 11 years and 5 months imprisonment. The court also imposed a minimum non-parole period of 5 years and 9 months, reflecting the seriousness of the offending and the need for deterrence, while considering Shaw's potential for rehabilitation. The final orders were that Shaw be sentenced to 11 years and 5 months imprisonment for the manufacturing charge, with a minimum non-parole period of 5 years and 9 months. Sentences for the other charges were imposed concurrently.

Orders