R v Stretch - [2016] NZHC 2783

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-085-006779 [2016] NZHC 2783

THE QUEEN

v

ALBERT KARL LENIN STRETCH

Counsel:
P K Feltham for Crown

A W Clarke for Defendant

Sentence:

18 November 2016

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Stretch, you appear for sentencing this morning in relation to the following charges:

(1) One representative charge of supplying methamphetamine.1

(2) One charge of participation in an organised criminal group.2

[2] You pleaded guilty to those charges after I gave you a sentence indication on

19 August 2016 of three years and two months’ imprisonment for your offending. At that sentence indication I noted that further personal mitigating factors may be able to be taken into account depending on the contents of pre-sentence reports and
additional submissions.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a). Maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 98A. Maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment.

R v STRETCH [2016] NZHC 2783 [18 November 2016]

[3] I have now had the opportunity to consider a pre-sentence report, a comprehensive alcohol and drug assessment report and the submissions from your counsel, Mr Clarke, and the submissions from the Crown.

[4] This morning I shall:

(1) summarise your offending;

(2) explain the starting point I have adopted;

(3) explain the adjustments I will make to the starting point;

(4) refer to what deductions can be made for personal mitigating factors;

and

(5) explain your final sentence.

Your offending

[5] Since early 2013, the investigation known as “Operation Fantail” targeted a large scale methamphetamine supply network. You are one of the defendants who played a role in this network.

Participation in an organised criminal group

[6] Throughout the operation you were based in Porirua. You maintained a mutually beneficial relationship with Mr McKinley, who was described as being the “operations manager” of the enterprise. He regularly supplied significant quantities of methamphetamine to you and on occasions, when he ran out, you supplied methamphetamine to him.

[7] You also played a part in Mr McKinley’s emergency planning. He called you into town to meet with him after police intercepted approximately 142 grams of methamphetamine. You were observed meeting with Mr McKinley at the Cambridge Hotel alongside Ms Ryan and Mr Beazley.

[8] You were also seen by the organised criminal group as someone Mr McKinley and others would call on for physical enforcement if it was needed to recover drug debts or to intimidate customers or rivals.

Supplying methamphetamine

[9] I turn now to the representative charge of supplying methamphetamine. On each occasion you supplied methamphetamine to Mr McKinley as part of your agreement to help each other with supplies of methamphetamine. Throughout you communicated in code language in an attempt to reduce the risk of detection.

·On or about 13 April 2014 you supplied Mr McKinley with seven grams of methamphetamine for $4,200.

·On or about 22 April 2014 you supplied Mr McKinley with four grams of methamphetamine.

·Between 26 and…

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 Stretch

Details

AGLC: R v Stretch [2016] NZHC 2783
Case: [2016] NZHC 2783
Decision Date: 18 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stretch, the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, sentenced Albert Karl Lenin Stretch for his involvement in the supply of methamphetamine and participation in an organised criminal group. Stretch pleaded guilty to these charges and received a sentence indication of three years and two months' imprisonment. The court, presided over by Collins J, assessed Stretch's offending and personal circumstances before determining his sentence. The court found Stretch to be a significant participant in a large-scale methamphetamine supply network, with a mutually beneficial relationship with the operations manager, Mr McKinley. Stretch's role involved not only supplying methamphetamine but also acting as an enforcer for the group. The court determined a starting point of five years and three months' imprisonment, considering the planning, quantity, value, and frequency of the offending, as well as Stretch's role in the operation. The court made adjustments to the starting point based on personal mitigating factors, such as Stretch's drug addiction and rehabilitative efforts, his compliance with restrictive bail conditions, and his guilty plea. The final sentence was two years and ten months' imprisonment, which the court deemed appropriate to hold Stretch accountable for his actions, promote a sense of responsibility, denounce his conduct, deter him and others from similar offences, and represent the least restrictive outcome in the circumstances.

The court ordered Stretch to serve two years and ten months' imprisonment on each charge, with the sentences to run concurrently. This decision was based on the court's assessment of Stretch's offending, his role in the organised criminal group, and the mitigating factors presented. The court took into account the need to balance the purposes and objectives of the Sentencing Act 2002, ensuring that the sentence would hold Stretch accountable, promote a sense of responsibility, denounce his conduct, deter him and others from similar offending, and represent the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders