R v Bancroft

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-004-18344 [2015] NZHC 949

THE QUEEN

v

PHILLIP BANCROFT

Charge:
Plea:

Supplying methamphetamine

Not Guilty

Counsel:

B D Tantrum for Crown
M J Dyhrberg QC for Prisoner

Resentenced:

7 May 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors/Counsel: Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Crown
Marie Dyhrberg QC (Auckland) for Prisoner

R v BANCROFT [2015] NZHC 949 [7 May 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mr Bancroft, you are here, of course, for resentencing following a decision of the Court of Appeal.1 In accordance with the direction of the Court of Appeal, I quash the sentence of three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment and I now look to resentence you on the basis that the quantity of methamphetamine you supplied was half a gram and not 14 grams, or half an ounce.

Starting point

[2] The case law, as Ms Dyhrberg QC and Mr Tantrum have submitted to me, is to the effect that a starting point of two years’ imprisonment is the proper starting point.2 That reflects the commerciality of the supply. I, therefore, adopt a starting point of two years’ imprisonment.

Personal circumstances

[3] As before, I will not increase the starting point to take account of your record of offending. But I must impose an uplift to reflect the fact you committed this offending while serving a sentence of community detention.

[4] Ms Dyhrberg suggested that an uplift of three months would be justified, but I considered that submission the last time you were before me and reached the view that I should adopt an uplift of six months’ imprisonment. I stick to that view.

[5] Perhaps a person presenting to the Court as a second-time offender might be able to argue for an exceptionally merciful uplift of three months. But your record of offending is somewhat longer than that and so although I am not going to penalise you for that previous record of offending, it does take away my ability to reduce the
uplift for your offending while on community detention.

1 Bancroft v R [2015] NZCA 140.
2 Cases considered for this sentencing are: R v Fatu CA415/04, 13 April 2005; R v Hughes [2007] NZCA 73; R v Matiaha-Smith HC Wellington CRI-2008-035-1764, 27 March 2009; R v Vinod HC Auckland CRI-2007-004-010097, 3 June 2008; Lundy v R [2013] NZCA 106; R v Tohu HC Whangarei CRI-2010-088-2691, 7 October 2010; R v Matthews HC Whangarei CRI-2010-088-
002613, 13 April 2011.

Sentence

[6] The end sentence is one of two years and six months’ imprisonment, and I

impose that accordingly. You may stand down.

Brewer J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of The Queen v Phillip Bancroft was heard. Bancroft was originally convicted for supplying methamphetamine, and he pleaded not guilty. The case was referred back to the High Court for resentencing following a decision by the Court of Appeal, which determined that the quantity of methamphetamine Bancroft supplied was half a gram instead of the 14 grams initially thought. The original sentence of three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment was deemed incorrect and needed to be reassessed.

The primary legal issue was determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the corrected quantity of the supplied drug and the circumstances of the offence. The court had to consider the commercial nature of the offence, Bancroft's criminal history, and the fact that he committed the offence while serving a sentence of community detention. The court assessed submissions from both counsel and reviewed relevant case law to arrive at a fair and appropriate sentence.

The court found that a starting point of two years’ imprisonment was appropriate, reflecting the commerciality of the offence. The judge decided not to increase the starting point due to Bancroft’s criminal history but did impose an uplift of six months to account for the fact that the offence occurred while he was serving a sentence of community detention. The final sentence imposed was two years and six months’ imprisonment, which the judge deemed appropriate given all the circumstances.

The final order of the court was to impose a sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment on Phillip Bancroft.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established