Legal Research
Cases
Wellington v R

Wellington v R

Case [2020] NZCA 277 8 July 2020

Appeal

Sentencing

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Discount for Mitigating Factors

Addiction as Mitigating Factor

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA544/2018
[2020] NZCA 277

BETWEEN	RIKI WELLINGTON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	22 June 2020
Court:	Gilbert, Ellis and Katz JJ
Counsel:	M W Ryan and J-A E Tulloch for Appellant Z A Fuhr for Respondent
Judgment:	8 July 2020 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to adduce further evidence is granted.
BThe appeal against sentence is allowed.
CThe sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment imposed on the appellant for possession of methamphetamine for supply on 18 October 2016 is set aside. A concurrent sentence of 11 years and four months’ imprisonment is substituted.
DThe minimum period of imprisonment of five years is set aside and replaced with a minimum period of four years and four months’ imprisonment.
EThe other concurrent sentences imposed on the appellant are confirmed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Gilbert J)

Following a trial by jury in the High Court at Auckland, Mr Wellington was found guilty of four charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply and two charges of supplying methamphetamine. He was sentenced by Palmer J on 24 August 2018 to 13 years’ imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum period of five years’ imprisonment.[1] Mr Wellington now appeals against his sentence.
[1]R v Wellington [2018] NZHC 2196 [Sentencing judgment].
Mr Wellington has filed further evidence in support of the appeal, being a psychological assessment report of Dr Hamish Bartle. The Crown does not oppose the admission of this evidence and we grant leave to adduce it.

Brief facts

Mr Wellington was involved in a significant methamphetamine supply and distribution network that operated in Auckland and Christchurch. The Judge outlined the roles played by various individuals in this network. Mr Hughes was said to be the principal organiser of the network, working directly for an unnamed “ringleader”. Mr McArley was Mr Hughes’ “trusted lieutenant” and was actively involved in planning, organising and implementing the overall distribution arrangements.[2] Mr Wellington ran the distribution network in Christchurch. His sister, Ms Wellington, was in a relationship with Mr Hughes and accompanied him and Mr McArley on various trips. The Judge described her role as being “significantly less important”.[3]
[2]At [36], referring to R v McArley [2018] NZHC 2073 at [13]–[14].
[3]At [41].
The Judge set out Mr Wellington’s specific role in the offending in these terms:[4]
… running a distribution network in Christchurch receiving large quantities of methamphetamine on four occasions in a month for supply, and on-supplying them twice.
[4]At [40].
The total quantity of methamphetamine found to be involved was 1.54 kilograms, made up as follows:
(a)6 October 2016 — 280 grams — possession for supply and supply.
(b)11 October 2016 — 280 grams — possession for supply.
(c)18 October 2016 — 700 grams — possession for supply.
(d)27 October 2016 — 280 grams — possession for supply and supply.
The Judge succinctly summarised the facts of Mr Wellington’s offending as follows:
6 October 2016

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 Wellington v R

Details

AGLC: Wellington v R [2020] NZCA 277
Case: [2020] NZCA 277
Decision Date: 8 July 2020 at 2 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal against sentence brought by Mr Wellington. The appeal was against the sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment imposed for possession of methamphetamine for supply on 18 October 2016. Mr Wellington was found guilty of four charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply and two charges of supplying methamphetamine. The Judge outlined Mr Wellington’s role in a methamphetamine supply and distribution network that operated in Auckland and Christchurch. The Judge set out the total quantity of methamphetamine found to be involved as 1.54 kilograms. The starting point of 13 years and eight months’ imprisonment was considered too high in view of the adjusted bands in Zhang. The appropriate starting point under Zhang is 12 years’ imprisonment. No discount should be given for Mr Wellington’s personal background and his addiction to methamphetamine because his commercial-scale offending was motivated by profit. A minimum period of imprisonment is justified. The sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment imposed on the appellant for possession of methamphetamine for supply on 18 October 2016 is set aside. A concurrent sentence of 11 years and four months’ imprisonment is substituted. The minimum period of imprisonment of five years is set aside and replaced with a minimum period of four years and four months’ imprisonment. The other concurrent sentences imposed on the appellant are confirmed.

Orders