R v Stevens - [2015] NZHC 2336

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-004-5509 [2015] NZHC 2336

THE QUEEN

v

SHANNON KAY STEVENS

Charges:
Plea:

See over

Guilty

Counsel:

R M A McCoubrey and K Eastwood for Crown
A G Speed for Prisoner

Sentenced:

25 September 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors/Counsel: Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Crown
Andrew Speed (Auckland) for Prisoner

R v STEVENS [2015] NZHC 2336 [25 September 2015]

Introduction

[1] Ms Stevens, on 19 August 2014 you pleaded guilty to a large number of methamphetamine-related charges, two charges involving the unlawful possession of a restricted weapon and a firearm, and three charges of obtaining a document, as
follows:

Offence Section / Act Maximum penalty

Manufacture of

methamphetamine (x3)

Misuse of Drugs Act

1975, ss 6(1)(b) and

6(2)(a)
Life imprisonment

Supplying methamphetamine
Sections 6(1)(c) and

6(2)(a)
Life imprisonment

Possession of

methamphetamine for supply

Sections 6(1)(f) and

6(2)(a)
Life imprisonment

Possession of ephedrine for

supply (x2)

Sections 6(1)(f) and

6(2)(b)
14 years imprisonment

Possession of equipment with

intent (x2)

Sections 12A(2)(a) and

12A(3)(b)
5 years imprisonment

Possession of material with

intent

Sections 12A(2)(a) and

12A(3)(b)
5 years imprisonment

Unlawful possession of a

restricted weapon

Arms Act 1983,

s 50(1)(b)

3 years imprisonment

and/or $4000 fine

Unlawful possession of a

firearm
Section 45(1)
4 years imprisonment

and/or $5000 fine

Obtaining a document (x3)
Crimes Act 1961,

s 228(a)
7 years imprisonment

Facts

[2] I am not going to go through the facts of your case in any detail. The facts to which you pleaded guilty are set out in the summary of facts.

[3] You have been, for some time, a leading member of a group involved in the large scale manufacture and supply of methamphetamine. You have gained significantly from your activities. The amount of methamphetamine manufactured is high, and for the purpose of the three charges it is certainly greater than two kilograms.

[4] The reason I am not going into the facts in any detail is because the path that you have chosen to tread is a well worn path and the tariff case of R v Fatu gives me clear guidance on how I should approach your case.1

Starting point

[5] I consider that your case is deep within band 4 of Fatu. This means that I should adopt a start point of between 13 years’ imprisonment and life imprisonment. The Crown submits that a start point of 16 years’ imprisonment is appropriate and your lawyer submits that a start point of 14-and-a-half years’ imprisonment is where the law should take me.

[6] In my view, given the quantity of methamphetamine manufactured on the three occasions identified, a start point of 16 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. I accept that Mr Shaw got less, but on my reading of the summary of facts your role is more as a leader in the group than his was.

[7] I also have to look at the additional offending. Much of it is part and parcel of the commercial manufacturing operation, particularly…

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 Stevens

Details

AGLC: R v Stevens [2015] NZHC 2336
Case: [2015] NZHC 2336
Decision Date: 25 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stevens, the defendant, Shannon Kay Stevens, pleaded guilty to multiple methamphetamine-related charges, unlawful possession of a restricted weapon and a firearm, and obtaining a document. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over the sentencing proceedings. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Stevens, taking into account the nature and extent of her criminal activities, her previous convictions, and any mitigating factors.

The court identified the legal issues to be resolved, including the appropriate starting point for sentencing, any uplifts for additional offending, and the consideration of both aggravating and mitigating factors. The court also needed to determine a minimum period of imprisonment, as required by law, and whether the sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively.

The court, Brewer J, began by establishing a starting point for the sentence, considering Stevens' role in a large-scale methamphetamine manufacturing and supply operation. The court found that a starting point of 16 years' imprisonment was appropriate, with an additional 18-month uplift for other charges related to Stevens' criminal activities. The court further considered Stevens' previous convictions and her addiction to methamphetamine, resulting in a total starting point of 18 years' imprisonment. After assessing mitigating factors, including Stevens' guilty pleas and her efforts to address her addiction, the court imposed a sentence of 15 years and 9 months' imprisonment on the lead charges, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The effective sentence was 15 years and 9 months' imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 7 years and 10 months.

In conclusion, the court imposed a sentence of 15 years and 9 months' imprisonment on Stevens for her methamphetamine-related charges, unlawful possession of a restricted weapon and a firearm, and obtaining a document, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The minimum non-parole period was set at 7 years and 10 months.

Orders