Landrein v The Queen - [2018] NZHC 2511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-404-132 [2018] NZHC 2511

BETWEEN
MICHEL LANDREIN

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 6 August 2018

Appearances:

C J Tennet for Appellant
C D Piho for Respondent

Judgment:

25 September 2018

JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 September 2018 at 3:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

LANDREIN v R [2018] NZHC 2511 [25 September 2018]

Introduction

[1] Michel Landrein pleaded guilty to one charge of importing methamphetamine and one charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply.1 He was sentenced on 26
January 2018 to 10 years and six months’ imprisonment, and required to serve a minimum period of 50 per cent of that sentence.2 Mr Landrein now appeals that sentence on the grounds it is manifestly excessive.

Background

[2] Mr Landrein is a French national. On 2 September 2017, he arrived at Auckland International Airport carrying an upright trolley case. The case weighed 5.3 kilograms, yet an X-ray scan indicated it was empty. Closer inspection revealed a false bottom, and in the secret compartment, approximately 1.9 kilograms of methamphetamine, with a purity of 80 percent. Its street value is estimated to be between $665,000 and $2,280,000.

[3] Mr Landrein is 45 years old and has no previous convictions in New Zealand or elsewhere. The pre-sentence report states that he regrets his offending, and was motivated by a desperate need for money. He has written a letter of apology to the Court.

[4] Judge Andrée Wiltens in the District Court adopted a starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment, and reduced the starting point by 25 per cent to reflect Mr Landrein’s early guilty plea. He did not make any other reductions, so the end sentence was 10 years and six months’ imprisonment. The Judge also imposed a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 50 per cent.

Grounds of appeal

[5] Mr Tennet for Mr Landrein raises issues concerning:

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(a) (the importation charge); and 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(a) (the possession for supply charge). Both charges carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
2 R v Landrein [2018] NZDC 1419.

(a)the starting point (given the amount of methamphetamine and the role played by Mr Landrein);

(b)the Judge’s refusal to grant a discrete credit for remorse, for medical difficulties, and for Mr Landrein’s ‘dislocation’ (that is, for being a foreign national with no connections in New Zealand); and

(c) the Judge’s imposition of an MPI in these circumstances.

Approach to appeal

[6] I must allow Mr Landrein’s appeal if I am satisfied – whether in relation to one of these stated issues, or otherwise – that there is an error in the sentence imposed on him, and a different sentence should be imposed. Otherwise, I must dismiss the appeal against sentence.3

[7] The approach previously taken by courts on sentencing…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Landrein v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NZHC 2511
Decision Date: 25 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michel Landrein appeals his sentence of 10 years and 6 months imprisonment for drug importation and possession for supply. The appeal hinges on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The District Court Judge had set a starting point of 14 years' imprisonment, reflecting the significant quantity of methamphetamine involved. Landrein's counsel argues the Judge should have acknowledged his role as a courier, which carries lower culpability, and granted a discount for remorse, his foreign national status, and medical issues. The High Court found that while the starting point was correctly set, the Judge erred in not applying a discount for personal mitigating factors. Taking into account Landrein's remorse, cooperation, and other factors, the High Court applied a 15% discount, resulting in a sentence of 8 years and 10 months' imprisonment. The High Court also found that a minimum period of imprisonment was not warranted as the usual non-parole period was sufficient for the purposes of accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and community protection.

The appeal is allowed. The sentence is quashed and substituted with a sentence of 8 years and 10 months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently, with a usual non-parole period of one third of the sentence.

Orders