IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2016-044-4279
[2018] NZHC 2196
THE QUEEN
v
CHEVONNE WELLINGTON RIKI WELLINGTON
Hearing:
24 August 2018
Appearances:
B D Tantrum and N R Webby for the Crown A J Maxwell-Scott for C Wellington
M W Ryan for R Wellington
Judgment:
24 August 2018
SENTENCINGS BY PALMER J
Counsel/Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland
A J Maxwell-Scott, Barrister, Auckland M W Ryan, Barrister, Auckland
R v WELLINGTON [2018] NZHC 2196 [24 August 2018]
Introduction
[1] Methamphetamine destroys lives and communities. Those dealing in methamphetamine cause, and profit from, human misery. That is why, in 2003, methamphetamine was reclassified as a class A drug in New Zealand. It “appeals to vulnerable populations, has a high physical and psychological dependence potential, and can lead to long-term adverse physical and psychological effects”.1 It is one of the most dangerous of drugs, which is why the maximum sentence for supplying methamphetamine, or possessing it for supply, is life imprisonment.
[2] Mr Riki Wellington was found guilty at trial of four charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply and two charges of supplying methamphetamine. His sister, Ms Chevonne Wellington, was found guilty of one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply and three charges of supplying methamphetamine. Today I have to determine their sentences.
Approach to sentencing
Purposes and principles
[3] Mr and Ms Wellington as you have heard, I have had submissions on aspects of the legal basis for sentencing which I must address before I get to your offending. It does matter. Please bear with me for a while.
[4] Sentencing is conducted for the purposes, and according to the principles, in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002. In terms of the principles of sentencing here, I have regard to the gravity of the offending and the offenders’ culpability, the seriousness of these offences compared with others, the need to ensure the sentences are consistent with other sentences for this type of offending, the particular circumstances and background of these offenders and the requirement to impose the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances.
1 Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003: Report of the Health Committee (April 2003) at 3.
[5] The need to deter others from committing the same or similar offences, is often said to be an important purpose in sentencing for drug-related offences. Indeed, the Court of Appeal has said it is a “fundamental requirement” and a “primary sentencing objective”.2 That sounds sensible but do we know whether long prison sentences deter drug offending? On 17 August 2018, I invited the parties to provide additional submissions and information regarding the deterrent effects of sentences of imprisonment for drug-offending in New Zealand or internationally.
[6] Mr Tantrum, for the Crown, submits deterrence is a “primary purpose” and “of crucial importance” in sentencing for commercial drug dealing, according to Court of Appeal and Supreme Court precedent.3 He states the Crown’s understanding…
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 Wellington
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Wellington [2018] NZHC 2196
Case
[2018] NZHC 2196
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Wellington involved two siblings, Riki Wellington and Chevonne Wellington, who were convicted of methamphetamine supply and possession charges. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over the sentencing of the Wellingtons, considering various legal issues, including the appropriateness of the deterrent effect of lengthy prison sentences for drug-related offenses. The court also examined the methodology for setting starting points for sentencing, particularly in light of the significant quantities of methamphetamine involved in the Wellingtons' case. The court found that the amounts of methamphetamine supplied in New Zealand had increased since the guideline judgment of R v Fatu in 2005. The Wellingtons' respective roles in the drug supply network were also considered in determining their starting points and overall sentences. Ultimately, the court sentenced Riki Wellington to 13 years' imprisonment with a minimum period of five years before parole eligibility, and Chevonne Wellington to seven years' imprisonment, cumulative on her existing sentence for manufacturing methamphetamine.