R v Situ - [2012] NZHC 3008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2010-009-008952 [2012] NZHC 3008

REGINA

v

RONGJUN SITU

Hearing: 1 November 2012

Counsel: B Hawes and N Robson for Crown
M J Callaghan for Prisoner

Judgment: 1 November 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WHATA J

[1] Mr Situ, you have been found guilty and convicted of one charge of conspiracy to manufacture a Class A controlled drug, methamphetamine. The maximum penalty for this is 14 years imprisonment.

The facts

[2] It is important to set your activities within the wider context of the methamphetamine enterprise that you were associated with.

[3] There were numerous persons involved in the enterprise, including Mr Newton, and more broadly Mr Linton, Mr Black, Mr Box, Mr Miles, Mr Lee, Mr Smith and Mr Harris. I am satisfied however that your involvement was
primarily limited to your contact and working with Mr Newton, who was the central

R V SITU HC CHCH CRI 2010-009-008952 [1 November 2012]

figure in the methamphetamine enterprise. However the scale of this enterprise was not small. As a result of the police investigation into the activities of the abovementioned persons, five clandestine laboratories were located. A total of 109 grams of methamphetamine was found at four addresses, at a street value of over
$100,000. Various types of substances containing pseudoephedrine were also located at four addresses, capable of producing methamphetamine worth between
$216,000 and $306,000. $134,855 was also found.

Your role

[4] In terms of your role, while the enterprise overall was large, I am satisfied, as I have said, that your role in it was relatively confined. I am satisfied that you supplied or brokered the supply of pseudoephedrine-based products to Mr Newton. It is not clear on how many occasions you did this, but the content of your discussions with Mr Newton suggests that price points had been established based on prior trading. There is some evidence that the quantum of the product exchanged was at a commercial scale. There was at least one transaction involving the sum of
$9,000. The Crown also suggest that in one exchange between you and Mr Newton, a previous transaction commanded a dollar value of “one hundred and something thousand”. While I am not entirely convinced that this exchange is sufficiently clear to show a scale of transaction of that magnitude, I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence that you were dealing at a commercial scale and on more than one occasion.

Personal circumstances

[5] I now turn to your personal circumstances.

[6] You are a married man and you currently live at your sister’s home. You had a struggling takeaway business in which you also lived up until the Christchurch earthquake. Since then you have been unemployed. You were supposed to attend an employment course as a condition of keeping an unemployment benefit, but you stopped this because of the ongoing requirements of this case. As a result, Work and Income New Zealand cancelled your benefit entitlement. You are keen…

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 Situ

Details

AGLC: R v Situ [2012] NZHC 3008
Case: [2012] NZHC 3008
Decision Date: 1 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Rongjun Situ, heard in the Christchurch Registry of the High Court of New Zealand, involved the sentencing of Mr Situ on one count of conspiracy to manufacture a Class A controlled drug, methamphetamine. Mr Situ was found guilty of being part of a methamphetamine enterprise, with his role primarily limited to brokering the supply of pseudoephedrine-based products to the central figure in the enterprise, Mr Newton. The court needed to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing and consider any mitigating or aggravating factors.

The court assessed Mr Situ's role in the methamphetamine enterprise, noting that while his involvement was part of a larger operation, his role was relatively confined to brokering transactions. The court found that the scale of Mr Situ's involvement, while commercial, was part-time and at most that of a go-between or "broker." The court considered that a starting point of three years and six months was appropriate given Mr Situ's role in the conspiracy, with some mitigating factors such as his gambling debts and drug dependency considered in the sentencing.

After considering the evidence and submissions from both the Crown and the defence, the court sentenced Mr Situ to three years and two months imprisonment for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. The court noted that the recommended home detention sentence was not applicable as the sentence exceeded the maximum period of two years allowed for such a penalty.

Orders