AThe appeal against sentence is allowed.
BThe sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment for manufacturing methamphetamine is set aside. A term of six years’ imprisonment is substituted.
CThe sentences imposed by Judge Rollo on the other offences stand.
DAll sentences are to be served concurrently.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Duffy J)

The appellant, Mr Mark Roulston, was sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment for manufacturing methamphetamine.[1] He appeals against this sentence on the ground it is founded on an erroneous view of the quantity of methamphetamine he manufactured and for other reasons which make the sentence manifestly excessive.
[1]R v Roulston [2019] NZDC 2296 [sentencing decision].
This sentence was the lead sentence in a group of concurrent sentences that followed his pleading guilty in the District Court to drug and drug related offending.

Background

Around 6.30 am on 27 September 2016, the police executed a search warrant on Mr Roulston’s address in Te Puke. There, they located a metal condenser, a hot plate, a parr bomb, iodine, caustic soda, electronic scales, $23,240 in cash, a shotgun modified so it could be carried with one hand, and 37.6 grams of methamphetamine. He was arrested and charged with:
(a)manufacturing methamphetamine;[2]
(b)possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply;[3]
(c)supplying methamphetamine;[4] and
(d)unlawful possession of a pistol.[5]
[2]Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(b) and (2). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
[3]Section 6(1)(f) and (2). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
[4]Section 6(1)(c) and (2). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
[5]Arms Act 1983, s 45(1). Maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment.
The charges were framed to encompass the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine between 1 January 2015 and 27 September 2016. The Crown maintained that during this time Mr Roulston manufactured at least eight ounces (224 grams) of methamphetamine.
Mr Roulston was interviewed by police. During the interview he admitted to manufacturing methamphetamine and said that some was for his personal use and the rest he supplied to his partner and to “a handful” of associates. The implications of other relevant parts of the interview are disputed. We shall return to this later.
Mr Roulston has always accepted that his admissions during the interview established the charged offences, but he disputes manufacturing the quantity of methamphetamine the Crown claims. This resulted in him entering pleas of guilty to the charges followed by a disputed facts hearing before Judge Mabey QC.
On 20 December 2018, Judge Mabey determined that Mr Roulston had manufactured eight ounces of methamphetamine.[6] There is no right of appeal against a decision from a disputed facts hearing; a challenge to the decision must be brought as an appeal against…

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 Roulston v R

Details

AGLC: Roulston v R [2020] NZCA 255
Case: [2020] NZCA 255
Decision Date: 25 June 2020 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mark Graham Roulston appeals against his sentence for manufacturing methamphetamine, arguing that the sentence was based on an erroneous view of the quantity of methamphetamine he manufactured and that it was manifestly excessive. He challenges the finding that he manufactured eight ounces of methamphetamine, asserting that the evidence only supported a finding that he manufactured two ounces. The appeal also challenges the sentence as manifestly excessive and that insufficient discount was given for his addiction to methamphetamine. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, with Cooper, Duffy and Edwards JJ hearing the appeal. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment was reduced to six years’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the other sentences. The Crown's appeal against sentence is dismissed, and the sentence is reduced to six years’ imprisonment for manufacturing methamphetamine.

The appeal hinged on whether the evidence showed beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Roulston manufactured eight ounces of methamphetamine over the charging period. The Court considered the evidence, which included Mr Roulston's admissions during a police interview, the presence of 37.6 grams of methamphetamine and $23,240 in cash at his address, and his previous drug-related offending. The Court found that there was enough circumstantial evidence to leave it sure inferentially that over the charge period Mr Roulston would have manufactured at least four ounces of methamphetamine. The Court found that the evidence did not show beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Roulston manufactured eight ounces of methamphetamine, and the appeal against sentence was allowed. The Court considered the appropriate starting point and reductions for Mr Roulston's offending, taking into account his addiction to methamphetamine, and reduced the sentence to six years’ imprisonment for manufacturing methamphetamine.

Orders