R v Treasurer - [2023] NZHC 1433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-004-1035

[2023] NZHC 1433

THE KING

v

TERRIQUE TREASURER

Hearing: 9 June 2023

Appearances:

FMT Culliney and BN Kirkpatrick for the Crown ID Tucker and LD Burns for Mr Treasurer

Sentencing:

9 June 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF FITZGERALD J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

To:I Tucker, Auckland L Burns, Auckland

R v TREASURER [2023] NZHC 1433 [9 June 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr Treasurer, you appear for sentencing today on three representative charges of dealing in controlled drugs. This follows a jury unanimously finding you guilty of a representative charge of supplying methamphetamine,1 a representative charge of supplying MDMA,2 and a representative charge of supplying ephedrine.3 You were acquitted on a representative charge of supplying cocaine and on a charge of assisting with the manufacture of methamphetamine. The Crown also withdrew charges against you in relation to the importation of controlled drugs.

[2] Having seen and heard all of the evidence given at trial, I fully agree with the jury’s verdicts.

[3] Before turning to the sentence I impose on you today, it is necessary to first set out the background facts to your offending. You and the lawyers here today will be familiar with these matters, but sentencing is a public process, and it is important that the public knows the basis upon which I am sentencing you today.

Factual background

[4] Two other persons involved in the drug syndicate and who pleaded guilty, H and N, gave evidence at trial of a person they knew of as “Gold”, who they said they interacted with on a regular basis during their time working in the syndicate, particularly in 2018. Both H and N identified you in a photograph shown to them by police as the person they knew as “Gold”. H also identified for police an address to which he had been on a couple of occasions which he understood to be Gold’s residential address, which was your home. You had a gold coloured vehicle parked outside. Both H and N described you as the nicest and friendliest of the persons in the syndicate that they dealt with, including that you were “family oriented”, “polite” and a “good person”. I pause to note that this is consistent with the various materials that I have been provided with in advance of today’s sentencing.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(a) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Sections 6(1)(c) and (2)(b). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 6(1)(c) and (2)(b). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

[5] Turning first to your particular role in the syndicate. You were introduced to both methamphetamine and working in the syndicate by Mr Al-Obidi, but I do not accept the suggestion in the cultural report that your role was limited to being subsidiary to him. Both H and N gave evidence that their roles in the syndicate were sometimes as “runners”, that is people who received instructions…

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 Treasurer

Details

AGLC: R v Treasurer [2023] NZHC 1433
Case: [2023] NZHC 1433
Decision Date: 9 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Treasurer involved the sentencing of Terrique Treasurer, who was found guilty by a jury of three representative charges of dealing in controlled drugs: supplying methamphetamine, MDMA, and ephedrine. The legal issues before the court were to determine an appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the gravity of the offending, the role of the defendant within the drug syndicate, and his personal circumstances, including his addiction to methamphetamine and prospects for rehabilitation. The court was also required to decide whether a minimum period of imprisonment was necessary.

In determining the starting point, Fitzgerald J considered the quantity of drugs involved and the defendant's role in the syndicate, placing him at the lower end of culpability bands for dealing in methamphetamine. The court adopted a starting point of 11 years' imprisonment, considering the defendant's role to be lesser than that of his co-offenders, despite his longer involvement in the syndicate. Fitzgerald J decided not to increase the starting point for the additional charges of supplying MDMA and ephedrine, as methamphetamine was the primary drug involved.

Personal factors such as the defendant's methamphetamine addiction, his demonstrated remorse, and his prospects for rehabilitation led to a 30% discount on the starting point, resulting in a sentence of seven years and eight months' imprisonment. The court decided against imposing a minimum period of imprisonment, finding that the lengthy starting point adequately met the purposes of denunciation and deterrence.

The final orders of the court were that Terrique Treasurer be sentenced to seven years and eight months' imprisonment on the charge of supplying methamphetamine, and three years' imprisonment on each of the charges of supplying MDMA and ephedrine, with all sentences to run concurrently.

Orders