R v Weston - [2014] NZHC 3260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2013-041-2516
CRI-2013-054-3479

CRI-2013-054-3481 [2014] NZHC 3260

THE QUEEN

v

TERRY ANTHONY WESTON KIMBERLEY SARAH MEIHANA-SUA ZANE MICHAEL MARSH
JEREMIAH CHRISTOPHER SUA

Hearing: 16 December 2014

Counsel:

E M FitzHerbert for Crown
E R Fairbrother QC for Mr Weston
S N Hewson for Ms Meihana-Sua and Mr Sua
L C Ord and A Shaw for Mr Marsh

Sentence:

16 December 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOBSON J

[1] I now have to sentence each of you on the convictions for methamphetamine dealing that occurred at various times during 2013. You have all pleaded guilty to a reduced range of charges in return for the Crown not proceeding with other charges that were originally laid in this case.

[2] It goes without saying, but I say it. Methamphetamine is currently the most serious illegal drug in New Zealand in terms of the harm caused by its use and the value generated in the unlawful industry of its manufacture and sale. Those dealing in methamphetamine are trafficking human misery. All of you will have seen its adverse effects and none of you can fool yourselves that your offending did not
contribute to the human misery that this drug causes.

R v WESTON & ORS [2014] NZHC 3260 [16 December 2014]

[3] The seriousness of your offending is reflected in the maximum sentences that the Court can impose. For instance, the maximum sentence for possession of methamphetamine for supply is life imprisonment.

[4] In the cases of Mr Sua and Mr Marsh, all the surrounding circumstances that I am familiar with suggest that the charges you have pleaded to were part of an on-going pattern of offending. In August 2014, an associate of yours, Mr Fraser, pleaded guilty to a range of charges involving 360 grams of methamphetamine, with dealing over two years. In his case, the Judge adopted a nine year starting point and Mr Fraser’s end sentence was six years and 10 months’ imprisonment. He admitted to substantially more serious offending than any of you, but it is one indication of the upper end that I have had regard to.

[5] Messrs Sua and Marsh, you had on-going dealings with Mr Fraser, adding to the likelihood that your offending extended over a longer period than the charges I am dealing with today. Clearly, I am not sentencing you for any offending beyond the specific convictions that I am dealing with, but I am satisfied that this offending did not arise from isolated incidents on your part, and that affects the relative seriousness that I attribute to the offending that is directly involved in those convictions.

[6] In sentencing all of you, I have to have regard to the principles and purposes of sentencing from ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002. I also have had regard to other sentencing decisions, some of which I will refer to in explaining my sentencing analysis.

[7] I now propose to deal with each of…

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 Weston

Details

AGLC: R v Weston [2014] NZHC 3260
Case: [2014] NZHC 3260
Decision Date: 16 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court of New Zealand was a sentencing hearing for four defendants charged with methamphetamine dealing. The defendants were Terry Anthony Weston, Zane Michael Marsh, Kimberley Sarah Meihana-Sua, and Jeremiah Christopher Sua. The legal issues before the court were to determine an appropriate starting point for each defendant's sentence, taking into account the quantity of methamphetamine involved, any aggravating or mitigating factors, and to determine an appropriate sentence that reflects the principles and purposes of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The court also had to consider whether a minimum period of imprisonment was necessary under section 86 of the Sentencing Act.

The court considered the quantity of methamphetamine involved in each defendant's offending, their prior convictions, personal mitigating factors, and the discount for guilty pleas. For each defendant, the court determined a starting point for their sentence and applied any necessary uplifts or discounts. The court then imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offending, the principles and purposes of sentencing, and the personal circumstances of each defendant. The court also considered whether a minimum period of imprisonment was necessary to hold the defendants accountable for their offending and to protect the community.

The final orders of the court were as follows: Jeremiah Christopher Sua was sentenced to five years and 11 months' imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of three years. Terry Anthony Weston was sentenced to three years and eight months' imprisonment. Zane Michael Marsh was sentenced to two years and 10 months' imprisonment. Kimberley Sarah Meihana-Sua was sentenced to 12 months' home detention with special conditions, including abstaining from drug use, attending drug treatment, and pursuing further study.

Orders