R v Tarm - [2015] NZHC 930

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-092-13289 [2015] NZHC 930

THE QUEEN

v

CHUCK LOU TARM

Hearing: 5 May 2015

Appearances:

D Johnstone for Crown
M Goodwin for Defendant

Sentence:

5 May 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v TARM [2015] NZHC 930 [5 May 2015]

[1] Mr Tarm, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty after a sentence indication to eight charges of supplying methamphetamine and two charges of possessing methamphetamine for supply. The maximum penalty on each of those charges is life imprisonment. You have also pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiring to supply methamphetamine, the maximum sentence for which is 14 years imprisonment.

[2] In addition, you pleaded guilty to 14 charges of supplying the class B controlled drug pseudoephedrine and one charge of possessing pseudoephedrine for supply. The maximum penalty for both those charges is 14 years imprisonment.

The facts

[3] Although I set out the facts underlying your offending at the sentence indication hearing,1 it is necessary for me to repeat them for the purposes of your sentencing today.

[4] All of the charges were laid at the conclusion of a large-scale police investigation into methamphetamine and pseudoephedrine distribution in the Auckland area. This revealed the fact that you had supplied others with methamphetamine on eight separate occasions between 18 August and 3 December
2013. You supplied these persons with quantities of between .5 of an ounce and, on three occasions, seven ounces of methamphetamine. During this period, you supplied a total amount of 25 ounces, or 700 grams, of methamphetamine.

[5] The investigation also revealed that on 14 separate occasions between 8 July

2013 and 24 November 2013 you supplied other persons with pseudoephedrine in the form of sets of ContacNT. As you were well aware, pseudoephedrine is a precursor substance used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and is a valuable commodity in the drug underworld. You supplied others with 90 sets of ContacNT which weighed more than 20 kilograms. This would have enabled those who wished to manufacture methamphetamine to extract more than eight kilograms of pure
pseudoephedrine.

1 A copy of which is annexed to these remarks.

[6] At the end of the operation the police searched your home address and your business address. The search of your home address revealed 8.5 ounces, or 238 grams, of methamphetamine, together with $169,970 in cash. They found two kilograms of ContacNT at your work address, together with $150,000 in cash. In total, you were either in possession of, or supplied, a total of 938 grams of methamphetamine and 22 kilograms of ContacNT.

[7] The police estimate that the methamphetamine found in your possession at the termination of the operation was worth approximately $84,150. The ContacNT found at your work address had a value of approximately $76,500.

[8] The operation also revealed that on one occasion you made an arrangement to supply half an ounce of methamphetamine to one of your customers. You entered into that arrangement on 30 November…

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 Tarm

Details

AGLC: R v Tarm [2015] NZHC 930
Case: [2015] NZHC 930
Decision Date: 5 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chuck Lou Tarm has been sentenced to 12 years and six months imprisonment for his involvement in the supply of methamphetamine and pseudoephedrine. Tarm pleaded guilty to eight charges of supplying methamphetamine, two charges of possessing methamphetamine for supply, one charge of conspiring to supply methamphetamine, 14 charges of supplying pseudoephedrine, and one charge of possessing pseudoephedrine for supply. The court considered the severity of the offending, including the large quantities of drugs involved and the potential harm to the community, in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also took into account mitigating factors such as Tarm's guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, and his previous good character, resulting in a discount of around 19 per cent to the sentence. Additionally, the court imposed a minimum term of imprisonment of six years and three months before Tarm would be eligible to apply for parole, to reflect the seriousness of the offending and the need for deterrence and community protection.

The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of considering both the severity of the offending and any mitigating factors when determining an appropriate sentence. The court also emphasised the need for deterrence and community protection in cases involving the supply of large quantities of drugs, resulting in the imposition of a minimum term of imprisonment. Overall, the sentence reflects the seriousness of Tarm's offending and the need to hold him accountable for his actions while also taking into account any mitigating factors that may be present.

Orders