Legal Research
Cases
R v Singer

R v Singer

Case [2022] NZHC 2488 29 September 2022

Accessory After the Fact

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2020-004-9587

[2022] NZHC 2488

THE KING

v

JARRAD SINGER

Hearing: 29 September 2022

Appearances:

B Kirkpatrick for the Crown H Leabourn for Mr Singer

Date:

29 September 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF CAMPBELL J

R v SINGER [2022] NZHC 2488 [29 September 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Singer, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of accessory after the fact to possession of methamphetamine for supply.1 Today I will impose a sentence on you for that offence in accordance with law.

Offending

[2] A summary of facts was presented to the Court when you pleaded guilty. You accepted that summary of facts. I will sentence you on the basis of those facts, together with any inferences I can draw from them.2

[3] In 2020, the Police National Organised Crime Group began an investigation (“Operation Cincinnati”) into a drug syndicate comprising primarily members of the Comancheros and Rebels motorcycle clubs, and various associates. The investigation centred on the syndicate’s apparent involvement in the importation, manufacture, production and commercial scale supply of various controlled drugs in New Zealand. 14 individuals, including you, were charged in connection with the investigation.

[4] At around 6.00 pm on 5 August 2020, two associates of the Comancheros delivered a commercial quantity of methamphetamine to a property in Christchurch. You and your co-defendant Luke Mathers, both patched Rebels members, greeted the Comancheros associates, and all four of you went inside the property. Mr Mathers took possession of the methamphetamine. The Comancheros associates then left.

[5] A few minutes later, Police executed a search warrant at the property. You and Mr Mathers flushed the methamphetamine down a sink and toilet. The two of you also smashed three cell phones. You initially refused to exit the premises, but eventually surrendered to Police.

[6] Police had intercepted the methamphetamine as it was in transit to your Christchurch property. A Detective picked up the methamphetamine and estimated

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 71 and 312; and Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and 2(a). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
2 R v R [2019] NZCA 135 at [33]; R v Kinghorn [2014] NZCA 168 at [20] and [31]; Pokai v R [2014]
NZCA 356 at [30]–[36]; and R v Apostolakis (1997) 14 CRNZ 492 (CA) at 494.

it weighed two kilograms. However, it was not weighed with scales. As a result of your actions, Police were not able to weigh the methamphetamine after it was in Mr Mathers’ possession.

Approach to sentencing

[7] The Sentencing Act 2002 sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing. In the context of methamphetamine offending, relevant purposes include holding you accountable for the harm that your offending has done to the community, promoting in you a sense of responsibility for that harm, denouncing your conduct, deterring you and others from committing similar offending, and protecting the community.3

[8] The principles include the need 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 Singer

Details

AGLC: R v Singer [2022] NZHC 2488
Case: [2022] NZHC 2488
Decision Date: 29 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Singer was heard by Campbell J. Jarrad Singer was sentenced for being an accessory after the fact to possession of methamphetamine for supply. The legal issues involved determining an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering the personal circumstances of the offender, and determining the appropriate sentence based on the purposes and principles of sentencing.

Campbell J started by examining the seriousness of the offending, noting that the possession of a large quantity of methamphetamine for supply was a very serious offence. The assistance provided by the defendant was deliberate and resulted in the destruction of evidence, thwarting the prosecution. These factors led to a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment. The judge then considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his previous convictions, guilty plea, efforts towards rehabilitation, and time spent on electronically monitored bail. Taking these factors into account, the presumptive end sentence was calculated to be five and a half months' imprisonment. However, the judge decided that a non-custodial sentence was more appropriate in this case, given the defendant's time already spent in custody and his stable job situation.

The judge imposed a sentence of 12 months' ordinary supervision, with special conditions including attending an assessment for a Short Rehabilitation Programme and attending and completing any recommended counselling, treatment, or programme. The defendant was also prohibited from communicating or associating with Rebels Motorcycle Club members without prior written approval of a Probation Officer and was not permitted to possess, consume, or use any drugs not prescribed to him.

The court recorded an addendum, clarifying that the defendant had not gone inside the property with the Comancheros associates, but only after they had left. This did not affect the sentencing outcome.

Orders