|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Court of Appeal of New Zealand |
![[AustLII]](/images/tiny-austlii.gif)
Court of Appeal of New ZealandLast Updated: 20 April 2005
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
Hearing: 14 February 2005
Court: Chambers, Goddard, and Salmon JJ
Counsel: P E Dacre for Appellant
H D M Lawry for Crown
Judgment: 17 March 2005
The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Reasons
(Given by Chambers J)
Reclassification of methamphetamine
[1] On 30 May 2003, the New Zealand Parliament reclassified methamphetamine as a Class A controlled drug. Previously it had been a Class B controlled drug. David Arthur, the appellant, was convicted of supplying methamphetamine after its recategorisation. Priestley J sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. He has appealed against that sentence, on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive. We were told that his appeal was the first to come to this court since methamphetamine was reclassified. [2] In preparing this judgment, we have considered numerous scientific papers on the dangers methamphetamine poses. In particular, we have considered the advice given to the Minister of Health by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs (EACD), advice released in 2002. The EACD recommended to the minister that methamphetamine be reclassified as a Class A controlled drug. The reasons given for that recommendation were these (at p 3): • That the use and manufacture of methamphetamine in New Zealand is growing, seizures are increasing, and it has potential appeal to vulnerable populations. • There are pronounced long-term physical and psychological adverse effects associated with methamphetamine abuse. • There are significant risks to public health from intravenous use of methamphetamine, as well as the dangers posed by illicit clandestine laboratories. • There are few, if any, therapeutic applications for methamphetamine. • Methamphetamine has been linked to deaths both in New Zealand and overseas. • There is high physical and psychological dependence potential. [3] The minister on 20 March 2003 lodged in the House a notice of motion for the approval of the Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2003, proposing, among other things, that methamphetamine be reclassified as a Class A drug. That notice of motion was referred to Parliament’s Health Committee. That committee heard evidence and reported to Parliament that the notice of motion be approved. The committee considered that the increased classification would "serve as a signal that methamphetamine is one of the most dangerous of drugs" (p 3). The committee considered that reclassification would provide the Ministry of Health with an opportunity to work through non-regulatory measures, public education programmes and community action plans to address levels of methamphetamine abuse. The reclassification would also give police the power to search and seize without a warrant. The committee considered that the increased penalties which would flow from reclassification "should reduce the prevalence of the drug in New Zealand society over the long term". [4] The committee’s recommendation was in due course approved. [5] The major effect of the change, so far as the courts are concerned, is the increased penalty. Whereas previously the importation, manufacture or supply of methamphetamine had been subject to a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment, the new maximum is imprisonment for life. It is clear from the committee’s report that Parliament intended that penalties would increase as part of the overall strategy to reduce the prevalence of the drug in New Zealand society.
A "starting point" range for low level supplies
[6] This appeal involves a low level supply of methamphetamine. The jury found that Mr Arthur had given four teenagers methamphetamine. The exact amount supplied was unclear, Priestley J said, "although there was some evidence that it amounted to several points, possibly a range of between 4 and 7 points of the drug": HC AK CRI2003-090-11066 11 August 2004 at [4]. A point is a popular description of a tenth of a gram of methamphetamine. [7] Unfortunately, there is no tariff case (or guideline judgment, as our Australian colleagues call them) with respect to the supply of Class A drugs. In a number of the High Court cases to which we refer in the appendix to this judgment, judges have expressed regret that there is not as yet a guideline judgment. They have made do in the meantime, principally using R v Wallace [1999] 3 NZLR 159 (CA) as their lodestar, making appropriate adjustments for the fact that Wallace was concerned with Class B drugs. This judgment does not purport to be a guideline judgment, even though two members of the present court heard a number of methamphetamine appeals in the same Criminal Appeal Division week. But it is hoped that this judgment will provide some guidance for High Court judges when sentencing in respect of methamphetamine offending, at least until such time as this court does deliver a guideline judgment. [8] It is a matter of some regret that Parliament has not given greater guidance as to the level of penalty appropriate for Class A drug offending. There is a huge difference in culpability between the case of a man who gives a point of methamphetamine to his wife and the case of Mr Big heading a mammoth heroin importation or supervising a meth lab with a million dollar annual turnover. Yet each in theory is liable to imprisonment for life. Admittedly the Sentencing Act 2002 contains helpful purposes and principles, but they are relatively open textured. A number of the Australian State Parliaments have provided guidance by specifying different maximum penalties depending upon the circumstances of supply. For instance, the Victorian Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 provides as follows:
(a) trafficking in a quantity of a drug of dependence "that is not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that drug" (s 71): life imprisonment;
(b) trafficking in a quantity of a drug of dependence "that is not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that drug" (s 71AA): 25 years’ imprisonment;
(c) trafficking in a drug of dependence to a child (s 71AB): 20 years’ imprisonment;
(d) trafficking in a drug of dependence (s 71AC): 15 years’ imprisonment;
(e) possessing a substance, material, document containing instructions relating to the preparation, cultivation or manufacture of a drug of dependence, or equipment with the intention of using the substance, material, document or equipment for the purpose of trafficking in a drug of dependence (s 71A): 10 years’ imprisonment;
(f) supplying a drug of dependence to a child (s 71B): 15 years’ imprisonment.
[9] That is helpful information for judges, as it focuses on what Parliament considers important features of the offending. For instance, it is clear that the quantity of drugs being trafficked is of fundamental importance. The age of the person supplied is also of relevance. Those may be self-evident, but it nonetheless does provide guidance to the judiciary as to Parliament’s expectations and concerns. The Victorian legislation also provides, with respect to each drug, the quantity of drug that meets the definition of "large commercial quantity" and "commercial quantity". [10] Queensland has done something similar in its Drugs Misuse Act 1986. That Act provides different maximum penalties for different categories of drugs, just as our legislation does. But it then goes on to differentiate, so far as maximum penalties are concerned, between trafficking in dangerous drugs and supplying dangerous drugs. Within the supply category, a distinction is drawn between ordinary supply and what is termed aggravated supply: see s 6. By s 6(2), an offence is one of aggravated supply if the offender is an adult and –
(a) the person to whom the thing is supplied is a minor; or
(b) the person to whom the thing is supplied is an intellectually impaired person; or
(c) the person to whom the thing is supplied is within an educational institution; or
(d) the person to whom the thing is supplied is within a correctional facility; or
(e) the person to whom the thing is supplied does not know he or she is being supplied with the thing.
[11] Even though our statute does not contain this level of detail, we think that the Australian statutes nonetheless provide useful guidance for the administration of penalties under our Act. In our case, much the same result can be achieved judicially by a proper application of ss 7-9 of the Sentencing Act. [12] Before leaving this topic, we make one further observation. Under, for instance, the New South Wales statute, only trafficking in the "large commercial quantity" category attracts a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. In reality, such supply is the only possible supply which could attract a penalty of that severity in New Zealand. Because, however, our Misuse of Drugs Act does not differentiate between supplies at various levels, all supplies (no matter how small) are theoretically eligible for life imprisonment and all must therefore be tried in the High Court. The appendix attached to this judgment shows clearly how many methamphetamine trials the High Court is now having to contend with. A large number of them fall into the "low level supply" category, like Mr Arthur’s case. It must be queried whether this is a sensible use of High Court judicial firepower. If (as is the reality) only supplies of Class A drugs in large commercial quantities could potentially attract a life sentence, other Class A offending could be middle-banded to the District Court. [13] For the purposes of this appeal, we need to establish a starting point for low level supply. But, given the virgin territory in which we tread, it would be unwise to fix that starting point without having regard to what starting points would be applicable for larger scale supplies. In order to inform ourselves in that regard, we have considered other authorities providing guidance in cases involving supply of Class A drugs. The English Court of Appeal has made it clear in R v Martinez (1984) 6 Cr App R (S) 364 at 365 that no distinction is to be drawn between the various types of Class A drugs, a view later supported in R v Aroyewumi (1995) 16 Cr App R (S) 211. This court’s judgment in R v Stanaway [1997] 3 NZLR 129 left open the question of whether a distinction should be drawn between different types of Class A drugs. This court reviewed a number of sentences and noted that it was possible to argue that offences involving Class A hallucinogens had on the whole received lower sentences than offences involving other Class A drugs. This court said that in a suitable case that differentiation would need to be considered to see whether it "still is justified in light of current knowledge of physical and psychological effects and other social considerations": at 142. The court further noted that there appeared to be justification for the view expressed in R v O’Donnell CA101/96 1 August 1996 that sentences for offences involving LSD and other Class A hallucinogens had been lenient. In light of this uncertainty, while we have considered Class A sentencing regimes generally, we have concentrated on methamphetamine and non-hallucinogenic Class A sentencing. [14] We have also considered Wallace. That case remains important for its judicial categorisation of offending, particularly its descriptions relating to levels of manufacturing of methamphetamine. But that decision, of course, was founded on methamphetamine’s then classification as a Class B drug. [15] We have taken great cognisance of the High Court sentencing decisions listed in the schedule to this judgment. That schedule has been prepared by some judges’ clerks and represents a list of cases determined in the High Court since methamphetamine was reclassified. It is not a complete list but is, we are told, reasonably complete. We think it appropriate to place significant emphasis on what the trial court has been doing. In this regard, we echo the comments made by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in its guideline judgment in R v Wong; R v Leung [1999] NSWCCA 420; (1999) 48 NSWLR 340:
[137] In the present case it is appropriate to adopt a "bottom up" system of guidelines which does not contain any significant prescriptive element. This is a field in which the collective wisdom of trial judges and appellate judges of great experience, whose careful attention over many years to the proper level of sentences has, insofar as a discernible sentencing pattern has emerged, created the foundation for a more specific articulation of such patterns. As Sir Garfield Barwick put it in Griffiths v The Queen [1977] HCA 44; (1977) 137 CLR 293 at 310, after noting the appropriateness of a Court of Criminal Appeal seeking to achieve consistency in the sentences imposed by trial judges:
"The views of those whose daily, or almost daily, task is the sentencing of prisoners must command respect."...
[139]...Trial judges have a relevant body of experience with respect to the sentencing of offenders under cognate State statutes. I use the word "cognate" to indicate that the consequences of trafficking drugs, and the nature of the criminal organisations involved in such trafficking, does not differ in principle in cases of seizure at the border, (prosecuted under the Commonwealth Act), and domestic seizures (prosecuted under State Acts). Whilst different considerations arise in the context of the various State regimes, there are also important common factors. The judgment of trial judges and judges in Courts of Criminal Appeal, many of whom are trial judges also, in the absence of any apparent inadequacy of outcomes, should be validated by this Court.
[16] We have also considered leading authorities in the English, Canadian, and Australian jurisdictions. [17] A common feature of many of the Australian statutes is the differentiation they make between large commercial supplies, commercial supplies, and other supplies. The terminology used is not consistent among the States, but there is an underlying concept of different maximum penalties based on the quantity of drugs involved. In this judgment we adopt the terminology used in New South Wales’ Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. Under the New South Wales Act, in the case of methamphetamine, a "large commercial quantity" (the supply of which attracts a potential sentence of life imprisonment) is 250 g (the same as for heroin). A "commercial quantity" is 5 g. In Victoria’s Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, a "traffickable quantity" is 6 g, a "commercial quantity" 250 g, and a "large commercial quantity" 750 g. Since our Parliament has not legislated for such bands, clearly the judiciary will have to fill the void as there is no logical way to approach a sentencing for drug supply other than by fitting the particular drug supply in question within a band of similar supplies. Quantity of supply is clearly the starting point for such an exercise, although, of course, it is by no means the sole consideration. Wallace, for example, represents just such a judicial response and fills the void with respect to Class B drug offending. [18] Until such time as this court may decide otherwise in a guideline judgment, there may be some advantage if sentencing judges in this country were to adopt the New South Wales bands, which equate quite closely to the Victorian bands, although terminology differs and New South Wales does not, by statute, make provision for the very large quantity represented by the 750 g plus band. (It does, however, by its guideline judgment.) The three bands (based on the New South Wales model) would be:
• Low level supply: less than 5 g
• Commercial quantity: 5–250 g
• Large commercial quantity: 250 g plus
[19] In fixing those bands, we wish to stress that quantity is, of course, not the only factor required to be taken into account. This was a point emphasised by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in Wong at [76] and that, of course, is equally true under our sentencing regime. But the quantity of the drug being supplied has always been considered of prime importance in fixing starting points, for obvious reasons. [20] In methamphetamine cases, the sentencing judge must first determine whether imprisonment is appropriate. There is a presumption in favour of imprisonment under s 6(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, a subsection which overrides the general principles to be found in the Sentencing Act. In this judgment, we need say nothing about the exceptional circumstances in which a sentence of imprisonment would not be appropriate. Mr Dacre, for Mr Arthur, did not attempt to persuade us that imprisonment was not the applicable penalty for someone in Mr Arthur’s position. [21] Assuming the judge considers imprisonment to be appropriate, we suggest the following starting points:
• Low level supply: two to four years’ imprisonment;
• Commercial quantity: three to nine years’ imprisonment;
• Large commercial quantity: eight years or more.
[22] We have allowed for an overlap between categories, for the same reason the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal allowed for an overlap between categories in Wong (at [76]):
There is no distinct point where one range ends and the other commences. If quantity was the only factor relevant to the exercise of the sentencing discretion, then one could accept a clear distinction at the point where one range ends and another begins. However, quantity is not the only factor required to be taken into account, either under s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) or in accordance with general principles.
[23] It may well be that this court will want to subdivide further the "commercial quantity" and "large commercial quantity" categories, as some other jurisdictions have done when formulating guidelines. In England, for instance, in cases of importation of Class A drugs the Court of Appeal has held that, where the weight of the drugs at 100% purity is of the order of 500 g or more, sentences of 10 years and upward are appropriate. Where the weight at 100% purity is of the order of 5 kg or more, sentences of 14 years and upwards are appropriate: Aroyewumi (op cit at 216). We make no comment as to whether that sort of classification should be followed here: that is a matter for another day, as what we are primarily concerned with in this judgment is a low level supply. We mention the other categories so that it can be understood clearly how the low level supply range fits in with them. [24] The starting points suggested correlate closely with what High Court judges have in fact been doing since methamphetamine was recategorised. The levels also seem reasonably consistent with leading judgments in other jurisdictions. [25] Where a case fits within the suggested range will be a question for judicial discretion, taking into account general principles of sentencing. Clearly, the supply of a point of methamphetamine to a spouse or partner would be at the low end of the low level supply range. If, however, any of the factors mentioned in s 6(2) of Queensland’s Drugs Misuse Act were present – see [10] above – then that would be, we suggest, under our law, as under theirs, an aggravated supply. [26] It is normal in drug sentencing in this country to fix a starting point before aggravating features (like previous drug offending) and mitigating features (like a guilty plea) are considered: R v Terewi [1999] 3 NZLR 62 at [12]. Repeat offending may well suggest significant uplifts are justified, given that deterrence is a fundamental principle of drug sentencing. If an offender has prior convictions for drug dealing, that is a good indication that a deterrent sentence at normal levels may well be insufficient to deter that particular individual from continuing to commit the same or similar offences. [27] We also stress that the suggested starting ranges are limited to supply cases. Those who manufacture or import Class A drugs may well incur higher sentences – indeed, much higher sentences – as they are responsible for actually bringing the illegal substance into existence or into the jurisdiction: R v Aramah (1982) 4 Cr App R (S) 407 at 409. [28] With that background, we now turn to consider Mr Arthur’s appeal.
The facts of the present case
[29] On 28 June 2003, Mr Arthur, a secondary school teacher, attended a party held at his house to celebrate the arrival of a new flatmate. He had been drinking heavily prior to joining the party. The majority of the partygoers were teenagers. During the evening Mr Arthur invited four of the teenagers up to his bedroom and offered them methamphetamine. All four of the teenagers consumed the drug while Mr Arthur videotaped them.
Priestley J’s approach
[30] Priestley J adopted a start point of three years: at [24]. He then considered mitigating features. He gave a credit of one year for "adverse career consequences of [the] offending" and "past professional competence and...good record": at [24]. The resultant sentence was, therefore, two years’ imprisonment. His Honour granted Mr Arthur leave to apply for home detention.
Mr Arthur’s complaints
[31] Mr Dacre submitted that Priestley J’s starting point was too high. He submitted that the starting point should have been two years. Mr Dacre did not quibble with the one year reduction for mitigating factors. The end sentence, he said, should have been one year’s imprisonment. Mr Dacre cited six High Court cases, all of which are referred to in the appendix. Although the six all involved "low level" supply, they do not support the view that two years was the appropriate starting point. Mr Dacre placed most emphasis on R v Brooking HC CHCH CRI-203-009-14630 1 April 2004. In that case, it would seem that Mr Brooking supplied a point or two of methamphetamine to a friend who asked for it. There was no element of commercial supply. The sentence imposed was 15 months’ imprisonment. That reflected, however, a guilty plea. The judge did not specify his starting point. Presumably it was in the range of 21 months or two years. That would be consistent with the range we have set out earlier in this judgment. It was the lowest level supply possible, with no commercial element, to one person. Mr Arthur’s offending was clearly worse than Mr Brooking’s. [32] We do not consider that Priestley J’s starting point was too high. This was a small supply, but what was significant was that:
(a) four people were supplied, not just one;
(b) those four were all teenagers.
[33] Priestley J’s decision seems consistent with a rather similar case in the United Kingdom, R v O’Brien (1993) 15 Cr App R (S) 556 (CA). In that case, Mr O’Brien shared his vial of heroin with four young people at a party. The court accepted that there was no commercial motive for the supply and that the supply was to people who were not unfamiliar with drugs. Unfortunately, one of the young people died as a result of taking the heroin. A post-mortem showed that she had not only heroin in her system but also alcohol, the drug Ecstasy, and a trace of Temazepan. Mr O’Brien, who pleaded guilty to supplying the heroin, was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal reduced that to three years’ imprisonment. In his case, he had pleaded guilty and there were other aspects amounting to what the court said was "considerable personal mitigation": at 558. The case was worse than the present one owing to the unfortunate consequence of one of the users dying as a result of the supply. But in other respects the case is very similar. The sentence Priestley J imposed stacks up well against O’Brien. [34] Mr Dacre also complained about some aspects of the judge’s reasoning, which he suggested were inconsistent. We do not see the need to discuss these quibbles, which were essentially verbal and peripheral. The judge made it clear that Mr Arthur was not receiving a higher sentence because he was a school teacher and a person of some standing in the community. On the contrary, the judge gave a significant discount because of Mr Arthur’s past good record as a teacher.
Result
[35] We dismiss the appeal.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Auckland
METHAMPHETAMINE SENTENCING
|
SENTENCE DATE
|
CASE
|
OFFENCE
|
PLEA
|
QUANTITY
|
PURITY/
STREET VALUE |
STARTING POINT
|
SENTENCE
|
|
4/03/05
|
R v Fleming (HC Wellington,
CRI-2005-085-1169, 4 March 2005, Goddard J)
|
Possession for supply of Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
Supply of Class A drug
(Methamphetamine) Supply of MDMA (Ecstasy) Receiving stolen property |
Guilty
|
1.6kg
3 Ecstasy tablets
|
$1,600 for the Methamphetamine
$240 for the Ecstasy tablets |
3 1/2 - 4 years
|
2 years and 6 months cumulative (for
receiving)
Total: 2 1/2 years imprisonment
|
|
4/03/05
|
R v Dalley (HC Wellington,
CRI-2004-085-2409, 4 March 2005, Goddard J)
|
Manufacture of Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
Conspiracy to manufacture Class A drug (Methamphetamine) Possession of equipment for manufacture of Class A drug (Methamphetamine) Unlawful possession of 2 firearms |
Guilty
|
|
|
5 1/2 - 6 years
|
4 1/2 years
|
|
4/03/05
|
R v Blake (HC Wellington,
CRI-2004-085-2409, 4 March 2005, Goddard J)
|
Possession of equipment to manufacture Class A
drug (Methamphetamine)
Possession of precursor substance (hypophosphorous acid)
Producing Class B drug cannabis Cultivation of Class B drug cannabis Possession of a stun gun |
Guilty to cannabis
Not guilty to of rest of charges |
|
|
|
2 years imprisonment (further 6 months special
conditions imposed at end of sentence)
|
|
7/12/04
|
R v Tran (HC Auckland, CRI
2004-004-004187, 7 December 2004, Keane J)
|
Possession for supply of Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty
|
18.441g
|
75% pure methamphetamine / $11,00-$27,00 (including 9 Ecstasy
tablets)
|
4-5 years
|
3 years
|
|
30/11/04
|
R v Woodgate (HC Whangarei,
T035464, 30 November 2004, Randerson J) |
Supply of a Class A drug (Methamphetamine)
Possession of a Class A drug (Methamphetamine) Supply of cannabis |
Guilty
|
Supply: 2 point bags
Possession: 83 mg |
|
4 years
|
2 years
|
|
26/11/04
|
R v Radford (HC Whangarei,
CRI-2004-088-002629, 26 November 2004, Harrison J)
|
Possession for supply of Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
Possession for supply of Class B drug cannabis
|
Guilty
|
4 point bags
|
$1,200 conservative
|
4 years
|
2 years 9 months
|
|
26/11/04
|
R v Rakete(HC Whangarei, T035402, 26
November 2004, Keane J)
|
Possession for supply of Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
|
Not guilty
|
0.5g
|
|
3 years
|
2 years
|
|
24/11/04
|
R v Henderson (HC Wellington,
CRI-2003-040-40445, 24 November 2004, Goddard J)
|
Party to the manufacture of Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
|
Not guilty
|
|
|
|
2 years
|
|
10/11/04
|
R v Rikihana (HC Hamilton, T25487, 10
November 2004, Priestley J)
|
Manufacturing Class A drug (Methamphetamine)
Possession of precursor substances and equipment
NB: party to another’s offence (R v Fatu)
|
Not guilty
|
|
|
5-7 years
|
Manufacture: 5 years 3 months
Total: 6 years
|
|
3/11/04
|
R v Rika (HC Rotorua, CRI-2004-463-0023, 3
November 2004, Cooper J)
|
Possession for supply of Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
|
Not guilty
|
2.9g
|
$2,400 conservative
|
4 1/2 years
|
4 years 3 months
|
|
12/10/04
|
R v Kissling & Anderson (HC Rotorua,
CRI-2003-063-10099, 12 October 2004, Rodney Hansen J)
|
Kissling:
Manufacturing Class A drug (Methamphetamine) Possession of precursor substances |
Guilty
|
Capable of yielding 5-10g
|
$5,000-$10,000
|
4 1/2 years
|
3 years
|
|
8/10/04
|
R v Ede (HC Palmerston North,
CRI-2003-054-3265, 8 October 2004, France J)
|
Possession of Class A drug for supply
(Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty – on the morning of the trial
|
2.6g
|
$2,600
|
4 years
|
3 years 9 months
|
|
8/10/04
|
R v Hikaka (HC Palmerston North,
CRI-2003-054-3265, 8 October 2004, France J)
|
Possession for supply of Class A drug (Methamphetamine)
NB: party to another’s offence (R v Ede) |
Not guilty
|
2.6g
|
$2,700
|
4 years
|
3 years
|
|
8/10/04
|
R v Keenan (HC Auckland, CRI 090-2333-04,
8 October 2004, Gendall J)
|
Possession for supply of Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
|
Not guilty
|
13.5g
|
$11,000-$16,000
|
6 1/2 years
|
5 years
|
|
5/10/04
|
R v Fatu (HC Hamilton, CRI-2003-019-25487,
5 October 2004, Mackenzie J)
|
Manufacturing Class A and B drug
(Methamphetamine) Supply x 2 (Methamphetamine) Conspiracy to manufacture x 1
(Methamphetamine) Conspiracy
to supply x 1 (Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty
|
Capable of manufacturing 1 ounce per cook
|
|
11 years
|
Manufacture: 9 years
Possession 8 years (concurrent) |
|
24/09/04
|
R v McMullan (HC Auckland,
CRI-2004-004-002977, 24 September 2004, Paterson J)
|
Possession for supply of a Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty
|
3.7g
|
$3,500-$4,000 if good quality
|
5 years
|
3 years 9 months
|
|
21/09/04
|
R v Shaida and Anor (HC Auckland,
CRI-2004-004-6330/CRI-2004-004-6746, 21 September 2004, Williams J)
|
Importing a Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
Possession for supply of a Class A drug (Methamphetamine) |
Graaf: Guilty
Shaida: Guilty
|
Graaf:
Import - 11kg
Possession - 5.925kg Shaida: Import - 1.922kg Possession - 918g |
Graaf:
Import - 80% purity / $6.6 - $11 million Possession - $3.6 million-$6 million Shaida: Import - 80% purity / $1.1 - $1.9 million Possession - $550,000-$918,000 |
Graaf: 15 -16 years
Shaida: 13 - 14 years |
Graaf: 14 years
Shaida: 11 years
|
|
17/08/04
|
R v Franklin (HC Auckland,
CRI-2004-404-5016, 17 August 2004, Williams J)
|
Supply of a Class A drug (Methamphetamine)
Possession of a Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty
|
1.7g
$2400 cash found
|
|
3 1/2 years
|
2 1/2 years
|
|
23/07/04
|
R v Faulkner (HC Palmerston North,
CRI-2004-054-2090, 23 July 2004, Miller J)
|
Possession for supply of a Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
Possession of cocaine
Possession of utensils for use of methamphetamine |
Guilty
|
19.7g
|
$19,700 including 0.3g cocaine
|
7 years
|
5 years
|
|
22/07/04
|
R v Knigge (HC Rotorua, CRI-2003-063-9730,
22 July 2004, Keane J)
|
Supply of a Class A and Class B drug
(Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty – after depositions but prior to
trial
|
Total unclear
|
Around $840 on one day
|
4 1/2-5 years
|
2 years
|
|
21/07/04
|
R v Murphy(HC Palmerston North,
CRI-2004-054-1614, 21 July 2004, Miller J)
|
Possession for supply of a Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty
|
9.8g
|
78% pure
$4,900-$9,800 |
5-6 years
|
4 years
|
|
21/07/04
|
R v Nuku & Anor (HC Wellington,
CRI-2003-032-9097, 21 July 2004, France J)
|
Possession for supply of a Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
Possession for supply of a Class A drug (LSD) Possession of cannabis
|
Not guilty
|
12.9g
|
$10,000
|
5 years
|
Nuku: 5 years
Other: 2 1/2 years
|
|
20/07/04
|
R v Bowden (HC Rotorua, CRI 2004-070-2721,
20 July 2004, Keane J)
|
Possession for supply of a Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty
|
13.7g
|
|
5 years
|
4 years
|
|
16/07/04
|
R v Samson (HC Christchurch,
CRI-2003-009-013390, 16 July 2004, Panckhurst J)
|
Manufacturing Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
|
Not guilty
|
Capacity to produce 6-10g (perhaps weekly)
|
$1,000 per gram, possibly up to $60,000-$100,000
|
Rymer: 7 years
Samson: 6 years |
Rymer: 5 1/2 years
Samson: 5 years.
|
|
02/07/04
|
R v Hills (HC New Plymouth,
CRI-2003-043-005789, 2 July 2004, Potter J)
|
Possession for supply of a Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
Possession for supply of Class B drug (LSD)
Possession for supply of Class B drug (Ecstasy) |
Not guilty
|
2 gram bags
3 point bags
|
$680-$1,150
|
3 years 9 months
|
3 years 9 months (includes offence of possession
of LSD)
|
|
02/04/04
|
R v Whare (HC Rotorua, CRI 2003-063-007238
2 April 2004, Venning J)
|
Supply of a Class A drug (Methamphetamine)
Possession of a Class A drug (Methamphetamine)
|
Not guilty
|
Possession of 0.2g
Supply of 7 point bags
|
|
3 1/2 years
|
2 years 9 months
|
|
01/04/04
|
R v Brooking (HC Christchurch,
CRI-2003-009-14630, 1 April 2004, John Hansen J)
|
Supply of a Class A drug (Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty
|
0.5g
|
$500
|
9-18 months
|
15 months
|
|
27/02/04
|
R v McLeod (HC Auckland, CRI-03-090-12511,
27 February 2004, Gendall J)
|
Possession for supply of a Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty
|
191g
|
$192,000
|
7-10 years
|
6 years
|
|
20/02/04
|
R v Bradley & Galvin (HC, Rotorya,
CRI-2003-063-8523, 20 February 2004, Williams J)
|
Possession for supply of a Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty (both)
|
55 point bags
|
$6,500-$9,000- including 14 tablets LSD and 10 ounce bags of
cannabis.
|
5 years
|
Bradley: 3 years 9 months for
Galvin: 2 years 3 months |
|
18/02/04
|
R v Botje (HC Rotorua, CRI 2003-087-3922,
18 February 2004, Williams J)
|
Manufacturing Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
NB: Participated in manufacture on 10-15 occasions
|
Guilty
|
|
|
8 years
|
3 1/2 years
|
|
17/02/04
|
R v Oveinikovas (HC Auckland, CRI
2003-044-006545, 17 February 2004, Miller J)
|
Supply of a Class A drug (Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty
|
|
$400-500 worth per week (18 of those weeks was classified as Class
A)
Total: $7,200-9,000 |
4-5 years
|
2 years
3 months |
|
10/02/04
|
R v Stewart (HC Hamilton, CRI
2003-019-19303, 10 February 2004, Randerson J)
|
Possession of a Class A drug for supply
(Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty
|
|
$200
|
4 years
|
2 1/2 years
|
|
21/11/03
|
R v MacDonald (HC Wellington, CRI
2003-032-9050, 21 November 2003, Wild J)
|
Manufacturing Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty
|
Ingredients sufficient to produce 11-18g
|
|
6 years
|
4 years
|
|
7/11/03
|
R v Roberts (HC Christchurch,
CRI-2003-009-012464/012660, 7 November 2003, Panckhurst J)
|
Manufacturing Class A drug
(Methamphetamine)
Possession for supply of a Class A drug (Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty
|
Offender’s admission of half a dozen cooks,
final cook produced 0.5g
|
$500
|
5 years
|
3 1/2 years
|
|
08/08/03
|
R v Morrell (HC Christchurch, CRI
2003-009-006899, 8 August 2003, John Hansen J)
|
Possession for supply of a Class A drug
(Methamphetamine) Manufacturing a Class B drug (Methamphetamine)
|
Guilty
|
12g
|
$8,400-$12,000
|
6 years
|
4 years
|
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2005/51.html