R v Tyler-Waugh - [2021] NZHC 868

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI 2020-019-3685

[2021] NZHC 868

THE QUEEN

v

RAY ALLAN TYLER-WAUGH

Hearing: 22 April 2021

Appearances:

J N Hamilton for the Crown

P J Morgan QC for the Defendant

Sentencing:

22 April 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF CAMPBELL J

R v TYLER-WAUGH [2021] NZHC 868 [22 April 2021]

Introduction

[1] Mr Tyler-Waugh, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to 16 serious drugs charges and two traffic charges. Those charges were:

(a)Four representative charges of manufacturing methamphetamine;1

(b)One representative charge of supplying methamphetamine;2

(c)One representative charge of offering methamphetamine for supply;3

(d)Three charges of possession of equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine;4

(e)Four charges of possession of material for the manufacture of methamphetamine;5

(f)Three charges of possession of precursor for the manufacture of methamphetamine;6

(g)One charge of driving while disqualified;7

(h)One charge of failing to stop (third or subsequent).8

Facts

[2] A summary of facts was presented to the Court when you pleaded guilty. When counsel for the Crown filed her memorandum as to sentencing, she said that you had accepted that summary of facts. Mr Morgan QC, when he filed his memorandum, said

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(b). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 12A(2)(a). Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment.
5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 12A(2)(a). Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment.
6      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 12A(2)(b). Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment.
7      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment and/or
$4,500 fine, and six months’ disqualification.
8      Land Transport Act 1998, s 52A(5). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment and two years’ disqualification.

that the summary was not accepted, although the facts in the summary were largely agreed.

[3] Mr Morgan’s memorandum identified the facts that you disputed. These include your role in the organisation, the number of occasions on which you manufactured methamphetamine, and whether you made large sums of money from your offending. However, he said that these were largely matters of emphasis, and that the weight to be attached to the disputed facts was immaterial for the purposes of sentencing. The Crown responded to the disputes raised by Mr Morgan with a further memorandum yesterday.

[4] Mr Tyler-Waugh, as you have heard from my discussion with counsel this afternoon, my view is that the disputed facts raised by Mr Morgan are not relevant to a determination of your sentence. Indeed, my view is that the first dispute that he raised is merely a dispute about how to describe your role, rather than a dispute about any facts. I explained my view in a minute that I issued yesterday, and Mr Morgan told me that he had discussed that with you.

[5] I will be sentencing you on the basis…

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 Tyler-Waugh

Details

AGLC: R v Tyler-Waugh [2021] NZHC 868
Case: [2021] NZHC 868
Decision Date: 22 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Ray Allan Tyler-Waugh was sentenced for serious drug offenses and traffic violations. Tyler-Waugh pleaded guilty to multiple charges including manufacturing, supplying, and offering to supply methamphetamine, as well as possession of equipment and materials for methamphetamine production, and traffic offenses such as driving while disqualified and failing to stop. The legal issues involved determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the seriousness of the offenses, considering Tyler-Waugh's role in the drug dealing operation, and assessing personal circumstances including prior convictions, addiction, and early guilty pleas. The court also had to decide whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment beyond the statutory minimum. The court found Tyler-Waugh's role to be at the upper end of the significant category, warranting a starting point of 13 years. Considering other offenses and personal circumstances, the starting point was adjusted to 15 years. After applying discounts for addiction, prior convictions, and early guilty pleas, the final sentence was 11 years and 3 months imprisonment, with a minimum period of 4 years and 6 months. The sentences for manufacturing methamphetamine, supplying, offering to supply, and possession charges were ordered to be served concurrently, except for the driving disqualifications which were cumulative. Charges for which no evidence was offered were dismissed.

Orders