R v Sunnex - [2021] NZHC 3193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-3685

[2021] NZHC 3193

THE QUEEN

v

LESLIE SUNNEX

Hearing: 26 November 2021

Appearances:

K Whyte for Crown

C Horsley for Defendant

Sentence:

26 November 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

R v SUNNEX [2021] NZHC 3193 [26 November 2021]

[1] Mr Sunnex, you are for sentence having pleaded guilty to charges of supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine, knowingly permitting premises to be used to commit a methamphetamine-related offence and money laundering.1 The maximum penalties for your offending are life, ten years and seven years’ imprisonment respectively.2

[2] The Crown has offered no evidence on four remaining charges and you are now discharged on those under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. These are charges 17, 36, 45 and 46 in the current version of the Crown Charge Notice.

[3] An important feature of your sentencing is that you have provided medical evidence that you have been diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer and cancer of the throat. As at July 2021 your life expectancy was estimated to be 11 months. As courts have recognised, serious illnesses such as these render the usual purposes and principles of sentencing somewhat meaningless.3

Background

[4] The charges that you face were laid after the police launched an investigation, known as Operation Kingsville, into the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine in the Waikato and Auckland regions. The operation uncovered a very large-scale network that manufactured and distributed methamphetamine.

[5] Your offending was prompted by your close association with Mr Alan McQuade, one of the alleged leaders of the network. In May 2020 he arranged for you to provide two other members of the network with a rural property near Cambridge for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine. The property was then used for that purpose for a short period. Although the property is owned by a trust, you were responsible for managing it.

[6] You therefore provided the property to others knowing it would be used for the purpose of committing an offence involving methamphetamine.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and 12(1); and Crimes Act 1961, s 243(2).
2      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(2)(a) and 12(2); and Crimes Act, s 243(2).
3      R v Luce [2007] NZCA 476 at [25]–[26].

[7] The charges of supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine were laid after the police discovered you had supplied or offered to supply methamphetamine to your son and his partner in quantities of up to one gram on 22 occasions. Actual supplies occurred on 11 occasions whilst there were 11 offers to supply methamphetamine.

[8] Your principal culpability lies in the fact that Mr McQuade provided you with cash derived from the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine. You then laundered the cash by purchasing gold and silver bars on Mr McQuade’s behalf using a false name. In four separate transactions between December 2017 and May 2019 you purchased…

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 Sunnex

Details

AGLC: R v Sunnex [2021] NZHC 3193
Case: [2021] NZHC 3193
Decision Date: 26 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sunnex, the defendant pleaded guilty to charges of supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine, knowingly permitting premises to be used to commit a methamphetamine-related offence, and money laundering. The maximum penalties for these offences were life, ten years, and seven years' imprisonment respectively. The court acknowledged that the defendant had provided medical evidence of inoperable pancreatic cancer and throat cancer, with an estimated life expectancy of eleven months. The court recognised that these serious illnesses rendered the usual purposes and principles of sentencing somewhat meaningless.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, taking into account the seriousness of the defendant's offending, and assessing whether there were any mitigating factors that could warrant a reduced sentence. The court also considered whether the defendant's serious health issues warranted a merciful sentence, as opposed to a custodial sentence. The court found that the defendant's offending was motivated by a misguided sense of loyalty to others, and that he had not received any direct personal benefit from his actions.

The court decided on a starting point of three years and nine months imprisonment for the money laundering charges, reflecting the greater value of cash laundered by the defendant compared to other individuals involved in the same network. The court then applied an uplift of 12 months to reflect the remaining charges, resulting in a sentence of four years and nine months imprisonment. However, after considering the mitigating factors of the defendant's guilty pleas, time spent in custody and on electronic monitoring bail, age, and serious health issues, the court reduced the sentence by 29 months. The court ultimately concluded that a merciful sentence was appropriate in this case, given the defendant's health issues and lack of direct personal benefit from his offending. The court imposed a sentence of 12 months home detention, to be served at the defendant's current residence on electronic monitoring bail.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to 12 months home detention to be served at the address where he is currently residing on electronic monitoring bail. The conditions of his sentence are to be those set out in the pre-sentence report dated 20 August 2021.

Orders