R v Van de Ven - [2013] NZHC 593

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2010-055-001742 [2013] NZHC 593

THE QUEEN

v

WAYNE PETER VAN DE VEN

Hearing: 26 March 2013

Appearances: B Finn for the Crown
P Kaye for the Prisoner

Judgment: 26 March 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Crown Solicitor (W Cathcart and B Finn), Auckland. Mr P Kaye, Barrister, Auckland.

R V VAN DE VEN HC AK CRI-2010-055-001742 [26 March 2013]

[1] Mr Van de Ven, on 19 June 2012, you were found guilty by a jury in this Court following a lengthy defended trial. The jury found you guilty of a considerable number of offences relating to the drug methamphetamine. In
summary, they returned guilty verdicts in respect of:

Number of offences

Charge Section Maximum

Penalty

Relevant details

351 Supplying a class A controlled drug, namely Methamphetamine

82 Manufacturing a Class A controlled drug, namely Methamphetamine

13 Conspiring to supply a class A controlled drug, namely Methamphetamine

14 Attempting to manufacture a class A controlled drug, namely Methamphetamine

25 Possession of a pistol or restricted weapon without some lawful, proper and sufficient purpose

s 6(1)(c) & (2)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

s 6(1)(b) & (2)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

s 6(2A)(a) Misuse of

Drugs Act 1975

s 6(1)(b) Misuse of Drugs Act

1975 and ss 72

& 311(1) Crimes Act

1961

s 45 Arms Act

1983

Life imprisonment

14 years’

imprisonment

10 years’

imprisonment

4 years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding

$5,000

Approximately

100 g in total

Between 793 g and 1,099 g in total

2 g

N/A

A pen gun and a stun gen found at your home.

Facts

[2] Mr Van de Ven, the facts on which I am sentencing you today come from the evidence put before the Court during the trial which is consistent with the jury’s
verdict. I accept, in a broad way, the levels of methamphetamine suggested by the

1     Counts 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 30, 32, 34, 36, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 59, 61,
64, 66, 70, 71, 74, 75, 77, 80, 82 and 84 of the indictment.
2      Counts 7, 15, 28, 41, 42, 58, 63, 68, 73 and 79 of the indictment.
3      Count 8 of the indictment.
4      Count 86 of the indictment.
5      Counts 89 and 90 of the indictment.

Crown in that your offending is clearly at the more serious end of the range this

Court would normally see.

[3] Briefly, you were the leading figure in a large scale criminal enterprise whose purpose was to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine. It would not be exaggerating to say you were the head of this operation in that you arranged the supply and acquisition of precursor and chemical substances necessary for manufacture, supervised, organised or manufactured methamphetamine, and sold methamphetamine to a number of people who on-sold it to others. You had access to significant amounts of cash in order to purchase the necessary…

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 Van de Ven

Details

AGLC: R v Van de Ven [2013] NZHC 593
Case: [2013] NZHC 593
Decision Date: 26 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wayne Peter Van de Ven was convicted of multiple drug-related offences, including manufacturing, supplying, and conspiring to supply methamphetamine, as well as possessing firearms without lawful purpose. The court heard that Van de Ven led a large-scale criminal enterprise, manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine. The charges stemmed from a police operation known as Operation Hype, which targeted Van de Ven's operation from January to April 2010. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Van de Ven, considering the nature and seriousness of the offending, his personal circumstances, and the purposes and principles of sentencing.

The court began by setting a starting point for the sentence, considering the duration and scale of Van de Ven's offending, his level of culpability, and the amount of methamphetamine manufactured and supplied. The court found that the offending fell within band four of the tariff and set a starting point of 15 years and six months' imprisonment, adjusted for the presence of firearms. The court also considered the supply charges and the illegal possession of restricted weapons, imposing concurrent sentences for these charges. In determining the minimum non-parole period, the court found that a half-sentence minimum was justified due to the aggravating factors and the lack of significant mitigating factors.

The court sentenced Van de Ven to 17 years' imprisonment for the manufacturing charges, to be served concurrently with the other charges. The total sentence was 17 years' imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of eight and a half years. The court also ordered the forfeiture of $8,950 in cash found at Van de Ven's home address.

Orders