New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Manufacturing methamphetamine

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2021

HARRIS v R [2021] NZCA 143

Citation

[2021] NZCA 143
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the District Court's combined starting point was excessive. It determined the appropriate starting point for the 2019 manufacturing charge was three years (not the higher figure adopted), upheld a six‑month uplift for the pistol and a four‑year starting point (with six‑month uplift) for the 2017 offending, giving a combined starting point of eight years before totality; applying a two‑year totality reduction (25%) produced a six‑year adjusted starting point, from which a 30% overall discount for mitigation and guilty pleas reduced the term to four years and two months, and afte…
25 Jun 2020

ROULSTON v R [2020] NZCA 255

Citation

[2020] NZCA 255
Court

Court of Appeal

Inferential reasoning from the interview and circumstantial material did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant manufactured eight ounces; the evidence did support a finding of at least four ounces (approximately 113 g); recalculation of the starting point and adjustments for uplifts and discounts yielded a substituted sentence of six years' imprisonment for the manufacturing offence, other concurrent sentences to stand.
1 Nov 2016

R v Hannon [2016] NZHC 2600

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2600
Court

High Court

Starting point set at 13 years imprisonment for manufacturing over 500g; uplift of 3 years for possession/importation and association of multiple operational and military-style firearms; further uplift of 6 months for prior similar methamphetamine manufacturing offending; discounts of 5% for assistance and 20% for an early guilty plea (total 25%) reduced the aggregate to 12 years 4 months on the lead charge; a 50% minimum period imposed (6 years 2 months); all sentences to be served concurrently, producing an effective sentence of 12 years 4 months imprisonment.
1 Sept 2016

R v HARDING [2016] NZHC 2069

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2069
Court

High Court

Defendant's culpability placed between primary technical cooks and peripheral delivery drivers; appropriate starting point for manufacturing charges set at 13 years, uplifted by two years for closely connected possession/pseudoephedrine offences to 15 years, then reduced by 30% for youth, 5% for remorse and 5% for late guilty pleas to produce an end concurrent sentence of 9 years 6 months; no extended minimum period under s86 imposed given age and overall sentence; forfeiture of cash under s32(3) ordered.
24 May 2016

R v MANGU [2016] NZHC 1104

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1104
Court

High Court

Defendant's manufacture and distribution of very large quantities of high‑purity methamphetamine placed his offending in Fatu band 4; taking into account his lesser role relative to the principal cook but acknowledging significant involvement, the appropriate starting point was 20 years, reduced by 5% for personal mitigation and 20% for the guilty plea to an effective term of 15 years, with concurrent sentences on related counts and a 50% minimum period of imprisonment ordered.
22 Apr 2016

R v HURA [2016] NZHC 777

Citation

[2016] NZHC 777
Court

High Court

Court selected a global starting point of 21 years imprisonment reflecting totality and role, applied a 20% guilty plea discount (4 years 4 months) producing concurrent sentences of 16 years 8 months on each manufacturing charge, imposed a minimum term of 50% (8 years 4 months) on each manufacturing charge, and imposed a 4 year concurrent sentence for participation in an organised criminal group; other charges were dismissed under s 147 CPA 2011.
9 Jun 2010

KISSLING V R SC 19/2010

Citation

SC 19/2010
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because it was filed long out of time, lacked merit, and the applicant failed to substantiate alleged evidential inadequacy or trial error or to show any question of general principle or appearance of miscarriage of justice.
12 Mar 2010

RHODES V R SC 1/2010

Citation

SC 1/2010
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the applicant's conduct was serious enough to merit life imprisonment; therefore an argument premised on other offenders having been worse did not show any error warranting leave.