R v Turner - [2016] NZHC 2728

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2015-019-6211 [2016] NZHC 2728

THE QUEEN

v

MELLISSA MAKAREHI TURNER

Hearing: 15 November 2016

Counsel:

J N Foster for Crown
K L Tustin for Defendant

Judgment:

15 November 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Counsel:
K L Tustin, Hamilton

R v TURNER [2016] NZHC 2728 [15 November 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mellissa Makarehi Turner, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty, on 11 October 2016, to two charges of supplying the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine, one of offering to supply methamphetamine, one of possessing methamphetamine for supply and one of possessing the Class A controlled drug Lysergide (LSD).

[2] The supply charges fall into two categories. The first is reflected in count 1. That relates to offending detected during Operation Daydream to which I shall refer later. The second, count 6, relates to discrete offending that came to light during the investigative phase and commences with dealing in 2008.

[3] The maximum penalty for all charges, save for possessing LSD, is life imprisonment. Possession of LSD carries a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment.

[4] Your pleas of guilty were entered just under two weeks before your trial was due to begin. That meant that little in the way of preparation time was saved for the Crown. You deferred entering your pleas of guilty for understandable personal reasons. However, as you were aware at the time you made that decision, the credit for the guilty pleas must now be assessed in the context of the time at which they were entered.

Facts

[5] The primary offending was detected during the course of an investigation undertaken by the Waikato Police Organised Crime Squad between August and November 2015. That investigation was given the code-name Operation Daydream. A number of individuals were identified as being involved within a group operating in the Te Aroha and Paeroa regions, supplying methamphetamine and, to a lesser extent, cannabis.

[6] The initial phase consisted of orthodox investigative techniques. A covert phase followed, after certain individuals had been identified.

[7] Although you dispute the level at which you operated within the hierarchy of the group, you accept that you were a close associate of the central figure, Mr Rhodes. You provided support to him through interactions with customers, attending personally to the sale and delivery of methamphetamine, and acting as a courier in uplifting methamphetamine he had procured. You were assisting him in the period between 1 January 2015 and 4 November 2015, the latter being the date on which the operation was terminated.

[8] You sought a sentence indication earlier this year. I gave that indication on

13 April 2016.1 It was declined. You were aware at that time that your trial was scheduled to begin on 25 October 2016. Your pleas were entered almost six months later. By then, it had become clear that co-offenders were to give evidence at your trial.

[9] Evidence gathered from intercepted communications…

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 Turner

Details

AGLC: R v Turner [2016] NZHC 2728
Case: [2016] NZHC 2728
Decision Date: 15 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Turner, the defendant, Mellissa Makarehi Turner, was sentenced by Justice Heath in the High Court of New Zealand at Hamilton. Turner had pleaded guilty to multiple charges including supplying and possessing methamphetamine and LSD. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the severity of the offences, Turner's culpability, and mitigating factors such as her guilty plea and remorse.

The court found Turner's involvement in the drug supply operation to be comparable to that of Mr. Kekesi, another defendant in related cases, and set a starting point for her sentence at six years imprisonment. Turner's addiction and her role as a courier and supplier were considered, along with the fact that her pleas of guilty were entered late, just before the scheduled trial date. Despite these factors, the court decided to impose a sentence reflecting the totality of her offending, which included both the Operation Daydream related charges and earlier methamphetamine supply charges. Turner was sentenced to five years and two months for the primary charges and an additional six months for the earlier offending, to be served concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of five years and eight months imprisonment.

The court also ordered the forfeiture of cash and destruction of drug-related paraphernalia seized during the investigation. Turner's sentence and the associated orders aimed to appropriately reflect the seriousness of her criminal activities while considering her personal circumstances and the timing of her guilty pleas.

Orders