R v Wildman - [2016] NZHC 2462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-085-006779 [2016] NZHC 2462

THE QUEEN

v

ROBERT DANIEL CHARLES WILDMAN

Counsel:
P K Feltham for Crown

C J Tennet for Defendant

Sentence:

17 October 2016

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Wildman, you are to be sentenced today, having pleaded guilty to the following two charges:

(1) One charge of supplying methamphetamine.1

(2) One charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.2

[2] You pleaded guilty to these charges after I gave you a sentence indication on

16 August 2016. That indication was a sentence of four years and eight months’

imprisonment.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c). Maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
2 Section 6(1)(f). Maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

R v WILDMAN [2016] NZHC 2462 [17 October 2016]

[3] This morning I shall:

(1) summarise your offending;

(2) explain the starting point I have adopted;

(3) explain the adjustments I will make to the starting point; and

(4) explain the sentence which I will impose.

Your offending

[4] Since early 2013, the investigation “Operation Fantail” targeted a large scale methamphetamine supply network. You are one of the defendants who played a role in this network.

Possession of methamphetamine for supply

[5] The charges against you concern an incident that occurred between 19 May

2014 and 21 May 2014. You made arrangements via an unknown person to supply Mr McKinley and Mr Beazley with 142 grams of methamphetamine. You communicated with the Auckland based associate via text messages and phone calls. You agreed to pay $65,000 for the methamphetamine. You recruited Ms Tate as the courier to deliver the drugs to Mr Beazley and to collect the payment from Mr Beazley and return to Auckland. She was to be paid $1,000 for this task.

Supplying methamphetamine

[6] You obtained the methamphetamine, which was contained in a number of plastic bags. You and Ms Tate wrapped the bags in paper towels and secreted them in aerosol cans that had been converted for the purposes of transporting the drugs. You put the cans in the boot of your car to make them look like normal items. You gave Ms Tate a piece of paper with the name of the purchaser “Kaylib” (Mr Beazley’s first name), his phone number and the amount of $65,000 written on it.

[7] You instructed Ms Tate to book a motel in Paraparaumu and contact Mr Beazley at 8.00 am on 21 May 2014. You told her to collect and count the money that Mr Beazley was to pay for the drugs before handing them over.

[8] Ms Tate then drove your car from Auckland to Paraparaumu with her flatmate. At about 7.50 am she contacted Mr Beazley to meet at the motel. By the time Mr Beazley and Mr McKinley arrived in Paraparaumu, the police were searching the vehicle and motel room being used by the two women. Mr Beazley and Mr McKinley fled back to Wellington. Police located 142 grams 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 Wildman

Details

AGLC: R v Wildman [2016] NZHC 2462
Case: [2016] NZHC 2462
Decision Date: 17 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wildman involved the defendant, Robert Daniel Charles Wildman, who pleaded guilty to two charges: supplying methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine for supply. The High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, presided over by Collins J, was tasked with sentencing Wildman. The primary legal issues were determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence based on the nature and extent of Wildman's criminal activities, and then making adjustments to that starting point considering various mitigating and aggravating factors. Wildman's role as a facilitator in the methamphetamine supply network, his extensive criminal history, and the specific circumstances of the offence were key considerations.

The court's reasoning involved first establishing a starting point for the sentence by referencing the tariff judgment in R v Fatu, which sets out the sentencing guidelines for drug offences. Wildman's case fell within band two, indicating a starting point of between three and nine years’ imprisonment due to the quantity of methamphetamine involved. Several aggravating factors were considered, including the planning and premeditation involved in the crime, the significant quantity of drugs, and Wildman's higher level of culpability compared to his associate, Ms Tate. These factors led to a starting point of five years and six months’ imprisonment. However, the court also took into account mitigating factors such as Wildman's time spent on restrictive bail, his prospects of rehabilitation based on psychiatric evaluations, and his genuine expressions of remorse. These factors resulted in various discounts to the starting point, culminating in a final sentence of four years and two months’ imprisonment for the supply charge, and a concurrent four-year sentence for the possession charge.

Orders