R v Ward - [2015] NZHC 505

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-092-009711 [2015] NZHC 505

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL DAVID WARD

Hearing: 16 March 2015

Counsel:

D Dufty for the Crown
H E Juran for the Defendant

Judgment:

16 March 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF ASHER J

Solicitors/Counsel: H Juran, Auckland.
Crown Solicitor, Auckland.

R v WARD [2015] NZHC 505 [16 March 2015]

[1] Mr Ward, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(a) one charge of permitting premises to be used for the supply of methamphetamine, an offence under s 12(1) and (2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment;

(b)one charge of making a document with intent to deceive, an offence under s 258(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; and

(c) one charge of supplying the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine, an offence under s 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

[2] The lead charge is the charge of permitting the premises to be used. The circumstances were that you leased a property in Onehunga for your signwriting business. For a period of just over a month, between 22 July 2013 and 28 August
2013 you allowed members and associates of the Black Power gang to visit your premises and on occasions supply methamphetamine. You were not involved in organising these occasions. In supplementary submissions I was informed that there were approximately six instances.

[3] The Crown accepts that the amounts involved were small, although the exact amounts are not known.

[4] In relation to the other counts, the possession of methamphetamine for supply related to 0.75 grams. There does not appear to have been any profit motive.

[5] As to the forging documents count, a Holden Commodore had been stolen by an associate of yours. It was arranged that you would make fake numberplates for the Holden Commodore, which you proceeded to do. They were a good replica and they were placed on the vehicle. The vehicle was then sold.

[6] The Crown submits that the appropriate starting point for the permitting premises count is approximately 18 months’ imprisonment. It submits that there should be an uplift of 12 months for the other two charges.

[7] Mr Juran for you in his submissions has pointed out that there is no tariff decision for the offence of permitting the use of premises, and that a starting point of less than 18 months is appropriate. He submits that there should be a modest increase in relation to the further counts, reflecting the lack of commerciality.

Starting point

[8] Mr Ward, I have to fix a starting point for your offending which reflects the culpability of your offending and is to be fixed without considering matters that might either aggravate or mitigate the sentence from your personal point of view. So I look just at the culpability of the offending without considering your…

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 Ward

Details

AGLC: R v Ward [2015] NZHC 505
Case: [2015] NZHC 505
Decision Date: 16 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ward involved the defendant, Michael David Ward, who was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, following a guilty plea on three charges. The charges included permitting premises to be used for the supply of methamphetamine, making a document with intent to deceive, and supplying the controlled drug methamphetamine. The court had to determine the appropriate starting point and overall sentence for Ward, considering both the culpability of his offences and his personal circumstances. The starting point for the permitting premises charge was set at 18 months, with an additional nine months considered appropriate for the other two charges. After applying discounts for good character and time spent in a monitored environment, the final sentence was set at one year and three months’ imprisonment.

The legal issues the court had to decide included establishing the starting point for the sentence, which involved assessing the culpability of the offences and comparing it with similar cases. The court also had to consider the appropriate uplift for the additional charges and the discounts applicable due to Ward's personal circumstances, including his lack of prior convictions and his participation in a rehabilitation program. The court's reasoning involved a detailed analysis of comparable cases and the principles of sentencing, particularly focusing on the totality of the offending and the need for a sentence that aids in rehabilitation and reintegration. The final orders of the court were that Ward would serve a term of imprisonment totaling one year and three months, with the sentences for the three charges running concurrently.

Orders