Wright v The King - [2023] NZCA 249

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA97/2021
[2023] NZCA 249

BETWEEN	MICHAEL PETER WRIGHT Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	3 May 2023
Court:	Gilbert, Thomas and Woolford JJ
Counsel:	X Wane and A O Belloir-Spense for Appellant Z A Fuhr for Respondent
Judgment:	19 June 2023 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Woolford J)

On 2 July 2020, Michael Peter Wright pleaded guilty to three representative charges of supplying methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for supply, and offering to supply methamphetamine, all over an eight-and-a-half-month period between 13 March 2017 and 1 December 2017, and one representative charge of threatening to kill his partner, again over the same time period.
Mr Wright disputed the amount of methamphetamine alleged to have been supplied (in excess of two kilograms) in a disputed facts hearing held on 30 November 2020. Judge Mabey KC concluded on the basis of the evidence then called that Mr Wright had supplied a total of 2.4 kilograms of methamphetamine over the eight- and-a-half-month period.
Mr Wright was accordingly sentenced on that basis on 5 February 2021 to 13 years’ imprisonment.[1] He now appeals against sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive.

Summary of facts

[1]R v Wright [2021] NZDC 2017 [Sentencing notes].

In August 2017, the Police National Organised Crime Group commenced an investigation into drug dealing by members and associates of the Kawerau Mongrel Mob.
Initially, call data was obtained and text messaging analysed. Police obtained data in respect of two mobile phone numbers used by the appellant, the earliest of which dated back to 13 March 2017. It was evident from an analysis of the call data that the appellant was heavily involved in supplying methamphetamine.
Then, over a period of four months in late 2017 and early 2018, the High Court at Auckland granted police surveillance device warrants valid for 60 days. These authorised the interception of telephone conversations, the tracking of vehicles and the use of visual surveillance devices in respect of a number of persons, including the appellant.
It was established that the appellant, together with others, was running a drug dealing “shop” at his home address in Kawerau. Police set up a covert camera at the appellant’s address which recorded persons coming and going from the address at all times of the day and night to purchase methamphetamine from him and his associates. During a period of just over two months, police were able to observe that, on average, more than 10 persons a day were visiting the appellant’s address to purchase methamphetamine.
Intercepted communications also revealed that the appellant and others on his behalf were sourcing methamphetamine from a number of different suppliers. The appellant would source methamphetamine in amounts ranging from grams to an ounce (28 grams), which he would then arrange to break down into smaller amounts ranging from a point (0.1 gram) to…

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 Wright v The King

Details

AGLC: Wright v The King [2023] NZCA 249
Case: [2023] NZCA 249
Decision Date: 19 June 2023 at 2 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Peter Wright, the appellant, was convicted of multiple charges relating to the supply of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for supply, offering to supply methamphetamine, and threatening to kill his partner. He was sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment by Judge Mabey KC. The central issue on appeal was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Gilbert, Thomas, and Woolford JJ, was tasked with evaluating the quantum of methamphetamine supplied, the appellant's role in the drug dealing operation, the discount for guilty pleas, the consideration of addiction, and the prospects for rehabilitation.

The court began by affirming the Judge's conclusion that the appellant had supplied 2.4 kilograms of methamphetamine over an eight-and-a-half-month period. The Judge had considered a broad range of evidence, including intercepted communications and visual surveillance, leading to the conclusion that the inference of the quantum of drugs supplied was well-founded. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the sentence should be reduced on the basis that he may have been boasting in his communications.

Regarding the appellant's role, the court found that the appellant's involvement went beyond that of a mere participant, justifying a "leading" role designation and a corresponding starting point of 15 years' imprisonment. The appellant's autonomy in managing the drug dealing operation, his contact with multiple suppliers, and his expectation of substantial financial gain supported this conclusion.

The court also upheld the Judge's decision to give a 10 per cent discount for the appellant's guilty pleas, noting that the appellant had attempted to limit his liability in an unrealistic manner. The appellant's addiction to methamphetamine was deemed not to warrant a discount, as the Judge concluded that the appellant's drug dealing was primarily financially motivated rather than driven by his addiction. Finally, the court found no error in the Judge's decision not to give a discount for the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation, given that the appellant had not taken steps to rehabilitate himself prior to his imprisonment.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of 13 years' imprisonment was upheld.

Orders