R v B HC Christchurch CRI 2005-009-13777
[2006] NZHC 714
•22 June 2006
This case has been anonymized
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
CRI 2005-009-013777
REGINA
v
B
Hearing: 22 June 2006
Appearances: C E Butchard for Crown
D C Ruth for Prisoner
Judgment: 22 June 2006
SENTENCE OF HON JUSTICE JOHN HANSEN
[1] B , you have pleaded guilty of offering to supply a class B
controlled drug, namely Ritalin.
[2] Between 10 October and 8 December 2005 the Christchurch police were carrying out an electronic interception investigation which has been named “Operation Tsunami”. It targeted drug dealing with well organised syndicates, who were dealing in pure methamphetamine. One of the principal parties apparently was your sister. You were very much a bit player completely on the fringes of this.
[3] On 21 October 2005 you sent a text message to your sister. It has been translated and no issue is taken with this “Hi mate are you still out and about do you want to swap for some ritas”. “Ritas”, of course, refers to the class B controlled drug
R V B HC CHCH CRI 2005-009-013777 22 June 2006
Ritalin. At 6.03am on 21 October you followed this text message to your sister by way of a phone call. You rang her on your cellphone and asked if she had received the text. You then asked if she was still out and about and whether she wanted to swap some “ritas”. The offer was declined. It is apparent, and accepted by the Crown, that you were offering to exchange some Ritalin tablets for a class C drug, cannabis.
[4] I bring in mind the various statutory requirements under the Sentencing Act, without specifically setting them out.
[5] There are, of course, a number of tariff cases; the lead one being Wallace & Christie [1999] 3 NZLR 159. However, I do not propose to deal with those for the simple reason that the non-commerciality of your low level offending is such that it does seem to me to be appropriate.
[6] You did not make a very good impression on the report writer, somewhat unusually. You asserted to her that you were not a drug user and that you did not have issues with drug or alcohol use. You said you were not guilty, but only pleaded guilty on advice of counsel. Counsel takes issue with that. With senior and responsible counsel such as Mr Ruth I do not accept that he would have pushed you into pleading guilty if, in fact, you were not guilty. That is simply not the way that he would operate.
[7] The aggravating feature is your previous drug convictions. The mitigating feature is your guilty plea.
[8] You are aged 27. You have a school aged child.
[9] You have acknowledged to me this morning that you do accept you have a drug problem, and that you need assistance and help with that problem.
[10] It appears that your mother continues to spend some time with you, but a considerable amount with her grandchildren. It is to be hoped your contact with
your mother can increase and you can move away from the environment in which you are presently living.
[11] In all of the circumstances I am not disposed to deal with such a low level offence by way of a sentence of imprisonment, bearing in mind, in particular, the provisions of s 16 of the Act which were referred to me by Mr Ruth. I accept the Crown submission that in the normal course of events a short term of imprisonment with leave to apply for home detention would be appropriate, but this is at an even lower end than the offences referred to.
[12] In the circumstances you are sentenced to 100 hours community work. You are placed on supervision for 12 months and you are to undergo such programmes, treatments or courses as directed by the probation officer.
[13] Ms B , as I said to you when I questioned you earlier, you have been treated exceedingly mercifully. This is your last chance. Any other drug case before this or any other Court and imprisonment is the inevitable outcome.
Solicitors:
Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for Crown
Counsel for Prisoner – D Ruth, Christchurch
0
0
0