Legal Research
Cases
R v Wilkinson

R v Wilkinson

Case [2021] NZHC 185 12 February 2021

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Sentencing

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Appeal

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-004-007113

[2021] NZHC 185

THE QUEEN

v

NEIL JOHN WILKINSON

Hearing: 12 February 2021

Appearances:

K A Lummis & P Patanasiri for Crown A M M Ives for Defendant

Sentence:

12 February 2021

SENTENCE OF PAUL DAVISON J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v WILKINSON [2021] NZHC 185 [12 February 2021]

Introduction

[1] John Neil Wilkinson at age 62 and having been found guilty by the jury at your trial in November last year, you appear before me for sentence on one charge of possession of the Class A controlled drug, methamphetamine, for supply.1

[2] On 31 July 2019, Police executed a search warrant at a central city apartment where you were staying here in Auckland. In the wardrobe of the bedroom of the apartment the Police located a number of cardboard boxes containing a total of 193 kilograms of methamphetamine being a quantity valued at approximately $27,000,000 on the New Zealand market. The jury at your trial found that you were in possession of the methamphetamine, for the purpose of supplying it to others.

[3] In sentencing you I must accept as proven, all of the facts which were essential to the jury’s finding of guilt.2 As the trial Judge I also am entitled to make factual findings based on the evidence at trial, where they are consistent with the jury’s verdict.3

Your offending

[4] Mr Wilkinson, you are British national, and before coming to New Zealand you had lived and worked for around 30 years in Thailand making periodic return visits back home to England during that time. On 17 June 2019 you came to New Zealand from Thailand via Australia, arriving here shortly following the arrival of your co-offenders and countrymen, W and C who had previously both arrived during May 2019. You told New Zealand Customs that you had come here for a holiday.

[5] However, rather than coming here for a holiday you were in fact here to participate in and play a role in the illegal operations of an international drug syndicate which had organised and carried out the successful importation of some 500 kilograms of methamphetamine into New Zealand which was held and awaiting distribution.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f); maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 24(1)(b).
3      Section 24(1)(a); Edwardson v R [2017] NZCA 618 at [105]–[107].

[6] Your airline ticket, hotel accommodation and living expenses were all paid for by the syndicate. Soon after your arrival you were contacted by your co-offenders and from your initial hotel out near Auckland International Airport you were relocated to a hotel in the central city. Over the following weeks you remained in Auckland and maintained contact with your co-offenders by using a cell phone which they had provided you with in order to exchange messages, and arrange meetings and you met regularly with them to socialise and receive directions and…

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 Wilkinson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilkinson [2021] NZHC 185
Case: [2021] NZHC 185
Decision Date: 12 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wilkinson involved the sentencing of Neil John Wilkinson for possession of 193 kilograms of methamphetamine for supply. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over the case, which was heard on 12 February 2021. The legal issues included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, adjusting the starting point for personal mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and deciding whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment. The court considered the quantity of the drug, Wilkinson's role in the offending, and personal mitigating and aggravating circumstances. After considering the evidence and submissions from both the Crown and the defence, the court determined a starting point of 22 years' imprisonment, adjusted for personal mitigating and aggravating circumstances, resulting in an end sentence of 17 years and six months' imprisonment. The court also imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years.

Orders