[1] James Brodie Young you are for sentence in this Court having pleaded guilty to one count of supplying the class A controlled drug methamphetamine, one charge of possession of the class A controlled drug methamphetamine for the purpose of supply, two charges of conspiracy to supply the class A controlled drug methamphetamine, and one charge of possession of the class C controlled drug cannabis for the purposes of sale.

[2] The Crown have not offered any evidence in relation to counts 1, 17, 28, 33 and 37. You are discharged under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 in relation to those counts. The Crown have previously been granted leave to withdraw a charge of participating in a criminal organisation.

[3] The offending for which you are for sentence spanned a period between

August and October 2014.

[4] On 30 August 2014 you told a Mr Gaitau that you were sending your “cuzzy” to Auckland. At the time you were living in Rotorua. You told Mr Gaitau that your “cuzzy had an elbow” in the boot of the car. An “elbow” is code for a pound of cannabis which would weigh approximately 448 grams and normally sells at street level for between $3,000 and $5,000. Intercepted communications revealed that the person known as cuzzy arrived at Mr Gaitau’s home after half past nine that night. Mr Gaitau in turn supplied the cannabis to another person.

[5] The first conspiracy charge relates to events on 17 September 2014. You told Mr Gaitau you would be travelling to Auckland the next day to obtain some methamphetamine to supply to your associates. On the same evening you repeated that information to an unknown associate via a text message. You arrived at Mr Gaitau’s address next evening on 18 September. While you were there Mr Gaitau spoke to Scott MacPherson, another co-accused, saying that he had half an ounce and a quarter ounce of methamphetamine and intended to obtain an ounce more the next day. Mr MacPherson arranged with Mr Gaitau to supply Mr Gaitau a quarter of an ounce which was intended to be passed onto you. Later that evening you spoke to an associate who asked you if you had any grams of methamphetamine for sale. You subsequently met in Tokoroa in the early hours of the morning. The Police were

unable to establish whether you actually received the methamphetamine from Mr Gaitau to give to the individuals you were dealing with so the charge remains one of conspiracy.

[6] The second conspiracy charge occurred on 28 September 2014. On that day you spoke to your partner Ms…

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 Young

Details

AGLC: R v Young [2016] NZHC 1039
Case: [2016] NZHC 1039
Decision Date: 19 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, James Brodie Young was sentenced following his guilty plea to multiple drug-related charges. The charges included supplying and possessing methamphetamine for the purpose of supply, as well as two counts of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, and possession of cannabis for the purpose of sale. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Young considering the severity of the crimes and his plea of guilt.

The central legal issue was determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence and applying the relevant discounts and uplifts for the circumstances of the case. The Crown argued for a starting point of approximately five years’ imprisonment for the methamphetamine charges, with an uplift of one year for the cannabis charge and a 15% discount for Young's guilty plea. Defence counsel submitted a lower starting point of three and a half to three years, nine months, with a lesser uplift for the cannabis charge and a 20% discount for the guilty plea. The court had to consider these submissions, the totality of Young's offending, and the principles of sentencing for drug-related crimes.

The court rejected the defence's argument that Young's possession of methamphetamine was for non-commercial purposes, finding that Young intended to supply the drugs to Mr. Gaitau for on-sale. The primary purpose of sentencing for such offences, according to the court, is deterrence and detention. The court noted Young's history of regular offending since 1990, despite expressions of remorse and a desire to address his drug addiction. While Young had periods of abstinence and completed a course in custody, the court found that his past actions and breach of bail conditions undermined the credibility of his remorse. The court decided on a starting point of four years and three months imprisonment for the methamphetamine charges, uplifted by nine months for the cannabis charge, and reduced by 15% for the guilty plea. The effective sentence was four years and three months imprisonment, with the cannabis charge running concurrently.

Young was sentenced to imprisonment for four years and three months on each methamphetamine charge and nine months for the cannabis charge, to run concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of four years and three months imprisonment.

Orders