R v Wallis - [2013] NZHC 1786

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2013-419-000009 [2013] NZHC 1786

THE QUEEN

v

STEPHEN JOHN WALLIS

Hearing: 16 July 2013

Appearances:

J Foster for the Crown
K Burroughs for the Defendant

Judgment:

16 July 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

Counsel:
J Foster, Hamilton
K Burroughs, Hamilton

R v WALLIS [2013] NZHC 1786 [16 July 2013]

Introduction

[1] Mr Wallis, you appear for sentence today, having entered a plea of guilty to one charge of supplying the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine to another person or persons. This is an offence pursuant to s 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It is subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years.

[2] You pleaded guilty to that charge on 8 April 2013, and you were remanded to be sentenced in this Court until Thursday, 16 May 2013. In the event, you had health difficulties, and the sentencing had to be further adjourned until today.

[3] There was initially one other count on the indictment presented against you. That was a count of conspiring to supply the precursor substance pseudoephedrine. You were not asked to plead to that charge on 8 April 2013. The Crown has today advised that it offers no evidence in support of that count. As a result, I have discharged you under s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961 in relation to that charge.

[4] There is a lengthy background to this matter. In July 2012, you were given a sentence indication by Lang J. That sentence indication remained open for acceptance as a result of a number of extensions until December 2012. You declined to accept the same, taking the view that you wished to put the Crown to proof. Ultimately, you elected not to do so, and entered the guilty plea. Priestley J gave an indication of the sentence he thought would be appropriate at that point of time. I deal with these sentence indications shortly.

Background Facts

[5] The charge to which you have pleaded guilty arises from an investigation

carried out by the police and known as “Operation Cape”.

[6] The initial investigation focussed on the activities of various individuals, and their involvement in the manufacture and supply of controlled drugs. You were not initially part of the investigation, but the police became aware that you were purchasing methamphetamine from some of the people who were the subject of the investigation, to on supply to others.

[7] For the purposes of the sentence indication, you accepted that your offending involved approximately 70 grams of methamphetamine, with a value of between
$40,000 and $70,000.

Presentence Report

[8] You come from a good and caring family. You were married until the year

2000. You were previously in gainful employment, running your own business. [9] You have not worked since 2002, and you are now living on your own.
[10] You are now 55 years’ old. You are a wheelchair-bound paraplegic. You suffered serious injuries in a car accident…

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 Wallis

Details

AGLC: R v Wallis [2013] NZHC 1786
Case: [2013] NZHC 1786
Decision Date: 16 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Stephen John Wallis, was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for supplying the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine. Wallis had pleaded guilty to the charge, which was a breach of section 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Wallis, taking into account the relevant legal principles and mitigating factors.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the appropriate uplift or discount for Wallis's previous convictions and personal circumstances, and the appropriate discount for Wallis's late guilty plea. The court had to consider the gravity of the offending, the need for accountability, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and the need for consistency with similar offenders.

The court held that Wallis's offending fell within Band 2 of the guideline decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Fatu, which normally attracts a starting point sentence of between three and nine years' imprisonment. The court agreed with the previous judges' indications that a starting point of four years was appropriate. The court also agreed that an uplift of six months was necessary to recognise Wallis's significant criminal history. However, the court departed from the previous indications and allowed an 18-month discount for Wallis's late guilty plea and personal circumstances, resulting in a sentence of three years and three months' imprisonment.

The court ordered that a statement from a community nurse, outlining Wallis's medical problems, be made available to the prison authorities and the Parole Board to assist them in dealing with Wallis. Wallis consented to the statement being made available, notwithstanding that it contains medical information personal to him.

In summary, the court sentenced Wallis to a term of imprisonment of three years and three months for supplying methamphetamine, taking into account the relevant legal principles and mitigating factors.

Orders