The Queen v Teague

[2008] NZCA 114

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA647/07
[2008] NZCA 114

THE QUEEN

v

MARK RICHARD TEAGUE

Hearing:22 April 2008

Court:William Young  P, Chisholm and Ronald Young JJ

Counsel:M W Ryan for Appellant

M D Downs for Crown

Judgment:5 May 2008 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Chisholm J)

[1]       Following trial, the appellant was found guilty by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine, converting a motor vehicle and converting a motor scooter.  He had earlier pleaded guilty to possession of equipment capable of being used for the commission of an offence against s 6(1)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, unlawful possession of a pistol and possession of ammunition.  Having taken the manufacture of methamphetamine as the lead charge, Potter J adopted a starting point of three years nine months, added a further 12 months for the conversion and firearms charges, and arrived at an overall sentence of four years and nine months imprisonment. 

[2]       This appeal against sentence (the appeal against conviction having been abandoned) is confined to a narrow issue:  whether the Judge should have added 12 months for the conversion and firearms charges.  There is no challenge to the starting point of three years nine months for the methamphetamine offending.  Mr Ryan submitted that no more than six months should have been added for the conversion and firearms charges and that by adding a further 12 months the Judge had arrived at a sentence that was manifestly excessive. 

[3]       Having taken a starting point of three years and nine months for the charge of manufacturing methamphetamine, Potter J observed: 

[23]     The presence of a firearm is one of the most serious aggravating features that can be found in drug cases: R v Faifua CA287/05 27 March 2006.  Here there was found a pistol and 57 rounds of ammunition in the house where the manufacturing operation was conducted.  The two convictions for conversion are a further aggravating factor.  I add to the starting point 12 months to reflect the additional offending.  This takes into account the guilty pleas to the Arms Act and conversion charges.  Without that mitigating factor a greater lift would have been warranted.  I have not treated as an aggravating factor the conviction for possession of equipment which is inherent in the manufacturing charge.  Nor do I consider it necessary or appropriate to increase the starting point for Mr Teague’s previous convictions.

[4]       Despite Mr Ryan’s arguments, we have not been persuaded that the Judge erred in principle or arrived at a sentence that was manifestly excessive.  As the Judge observed, the presence of a firearm is one of the most serious aggravating features that can be found in drug cases:  R v Faifua.  Notwithstanding that the firearm and ammunition were locked in a safe in the master bedroom, the existence of those items in the house where methamphetamine was being manufactured was a serious aggravating factor.  An additional 12 months to reflect the existence of those items and the conversion of the motor vehicle and scooter was within the range available to the Judge.  We are also satisfied that the overall sentence properly reflected the totality of the offending and was not manifestly excessive. 

[5]       The appeal is dismissed. 

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington