R v Whitehead - [2013] NZHC 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2011-043-2338 [2013] NZHC 2017

THE QUEEN

v

ADAM JAMES WHITEHEAD

Hearing: 9 August 2013

Counsel: C E Clarke for Crown
P M Keegan for Prisoner

Sentence: 9 August 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] Mr Whitehead, you have been convicted by a jury of the following offences: (a) conspiracy to supply methamphetamine;1
(b) participation in an organised criminal group;2 and

(c) conspiracy to supply class C ecstasy.3

[2] As in the case of your co-offenders for sentence today, I am going to tell you now where you stand in terms of sentence. It is that you will be sentenced to home
detention for a term of eleven months.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and s 6(2A)(a).
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and s 6(2A)(c).

R v WHITEHEAD [2013] NZHC 2017 [9 August 2013]

[3] These sentencing remarks are to be read along with those for your co- offenders Jade James4 and Garry Dewar.5 As with the others, I will try to avoid unnecessary repetition.

Facts

[4] You are a 24 year old qualified avionics mechanic. The charges against you arose out of Operation Puff, a drug offending operation in the New Plymouth area between May and September 2011. As we have heard already today, part of that investigation focused on the activities of the New Plymouth chapter of the Rebels motorcycle gang. You are not a member of that gang.

[5] At the time of this offending you worked for the Royal New Zealand Air Force in Auckland. During the period of offending you were an associate of a co- offender sentenced already, Nathan Couper. You had got to know him when you were in New Plymouth. You had worked as a DJ at a club he then owned.

[6] You have no previous convictions. It is plain from the intercepted communications played at trial that you have been a recreational drug user. It is deeply unfortunate that that habit, and a poor choice of associates such as Mr Couper, has sent you so badly off the rails.

[7] Your defence at the trial was that communications between you and Mr Couper, in which you agreed to supply Couper with large quantities of ecstasy and methamphetamine, were just “big noting” by you. And that you had no actual ability to back up your words. And, too, that the very high prices that you quoted towards the end for these drugs were an attempt at disengagement, rather than a genuine attempt to enter contractual relations.

[8] Mr Keegan conducted your defence at trial with such skill that that deserves to be noted publicly. His closing address was of exceptional quality. Certainly in
your case a doubt existed as to your criminal intent. But the jury decided that it was

4 R v James [2013] NZHC 2006.
5 R v Dewar [2013] NZHC 2010

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 Whitehead

Details

AGLC: R v Whitehead [2013] NZHC 2017
Case: [2013] NZHC 2017
Decision Date: 9 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adam James Whitehead was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, participation in an organised criminal group, and conspiracy to supply class C ecstasy. The convictions arose from his involvement in drug trafficking activities in New Plymouth between May and September 2011. Whitehead, a 24-year-old avionics mechanic, was not a member of the Rebels motorcycle gang but had connections with Nathan Couper, one of the gang members. Whitehead had no prior convictions and was found to be remorseful, motivated to change his offending behaviors, and had prospects of employment as an engineer.

The court considered the various purposes and principles of sentencing, including the nature and circumstances of the offending, the need for denunciation, and the offender's culpability. The court adopted a starting point of two years and three months' imprisonment for the lead offence of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, taking into account the differing maximum penalties for conspiracy. The court then uplifted the sentence by four months to account for the other offences. The court also considered mitigating factors such as Whitehead's lack of prior convictions, his remorse, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court ultimately sentenced Whitehead to eleven months' home detention, with conditions including electronic monitoring, restrictions on alcohol and drug use, and a ban on contact with co-offenders. The court emphasized the rehabilitative benefits of home detention and the importance of enabling Whitehead to continue his employment.

The final orders of the court were that Whitehead was to be sentenced to eleven months' home detention, with specific conditions to be imposed, including electronic monitoring, restrictions on alcohol and drug use, and a ban on contact with co-offenders. Whitehead was also to be subject to standard post-release conditions for a period of six months.

Orders