R v Bell

[2017] NZHC 1818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2016-009-002757 [2017] NZHC 1818

THE QUEEN

v

JAMES MACADAM BELL

Hearing:	2 August 2017
Counsel:	T J McGuigan for Crown AMM Ives for Mr Bell
Sentence:	2 August 2017

SENTENCE OF DUFFY J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Meredith Connell, Auckland

Annabel Ives, Barrister, Auckland

R v BELL [2017] NZHC 1818 [2 August 2017]

[1]      Mr Bell you are to be sentenced on offences involving the importation of Class A and B controlled drugs and possession of a Class C controlled drug.  You pleaded guilty to these offences following a sentencing indication from me, a copy of which will be be attached to the sentencing notes.

[2]      Your offending was detected as a result of a police operation codenamed

‘Operation Spar’ which involved four other persons.

[3]      In total you were involved in the importation of approximately 323 grams of methamphetamine and 1.9 litres of gamma-butyrolactone (GBL). You were found in possession of 102 grams of cannabis.

[4]      Your  role  in  the  offending,  which  is  described  in  greater  detail  in  the sentencing indication, was to provide a safe address for the receipt of packages containing the methamphetamine and the GBL.   There were four such deliveries. The  packages  of  illicit  drugs  were  delivered  to  the  business  address  of  your employer, where they were handed to the receptionist, who passed them on to you. No doubt others who planned the importations thought delivery to a respectable business  address  would  provide  good  cover  for  the  illicit  packages.     In  the sentencing indication I accepted that you undertook the role of “catcher” which is a term used to refer to persons at the bottom of an importation chain whose role is to receive the illegal drugs and to see them passed on to someone else.

[5]      The  summary of  facts  provides  no  evidence  of  you  profiting  from  your actions.   However, the pre-sentence report states that you have been using methamphetamine since 2007 with regular use of the drug increasing from monthly to eventually daily use.  It seems the increase in use of methamphetamine coincided with your move to Auckland in 2010.  You cite long working hours and the need to keep alert as one of the reasons for your methamphetamine use.

[6]      You are 44 years old.  You have no relevant convictions.  The pre-sentence report reveals you are remorseful and keen to take steps to take steps to rehabilitate yourself including overcoming your drug addiction.  You have already taken active

steps in that regard.  You are an intelligent man who has had a successful career.  I expect that if you put your mind to it you will be able to resolve your drug addiction. The pre-sentence report reveals you to be insightful and determined to do so.  You also have the help of supportive family members, whose letters I have read and support of friends, some of whom are here today.   Your offending has come as a shock to them.   This is not surprising.   You appear to have managed well and achieved a lot despite your addiction.

[7]      The  fact  someone  like  you  finds  himself  in  court  for  sentence  facing  a lengthy term  of  imprisonment  is  in  itself  testament  to  the  pernicious  nature  of methamphetamine addiction.  Whilst this is a matter of regret, the fact is that your offending will have led to other persons, including those in similar circumstances to yourself, becoming addicted to methamphetamine.   In this way your conduct has harmed others.   This is why the courts place such emphasis on denunciation and deterrence when sentencing drug offenders, particularly class A drugs. Their conduct inevitably leads to others being drawn into the web of drug addiction.

[8]      For reasons given in the sentencing indication I consider a starting point of nine  years  imprisonment  is  appropriate  for  your  offending.    This  is  essentially because the quantities of methamphetamine involved place your offending at the lower end of band two in R v Fatu, a Court of Appeal decision that sets out the

relevant  sentencing  bands  for  importation  of  methamphetamine.1      There  are  no

aggravating features of the offending.

[9]      I recognise the remorse you have expressed and the steps you have taken already to rehabilitate yourself from drug addiction.  However, for well-established reasons I can make little allowance for those personal factors in the context of drug offending on a commercial scale, which is what your offending was.2    I propose to give you a five per cent discount for those factors.  This takes the sentence down to

one of eight years and seven months.3

1      R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA).

2      See Jarden v R [2008] NZSC 69, [2008] 3 NZLR 612 at [12]; R v Wallace [1999] 3 NZLR 159 (CA) at [25]; Sarah v R [2013] NZCA 446 at [42]; He v R [2017] NZCA 77 at [18].

3      In line with R v Clifford [2011] NZCA 360, [2012] 1 NZLR 23 at [57]–[63], I make the reductions for personal and mitigating factors before taking into account the reduction for a guilty plea.

[10]     I have already said you are entitled to a 20 percent discount for the entry of a guilty plea.  This further reduces the sentence to an end sentence of six years and ten months imprisonment.   I am satisfied this is the least restrictive sentence I can impose.

Result

[11]      Mr Bell please stand.

[12]     For the offence of importing the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine

you are sentenced to six years and ten months’ imprisonment.

[13]     For  the  offence  of  importing  the  Class  B  controlled  drug  GBL you  are

sentenced concurrently to two years’ imprisonment.

[14]     Because the sentences are concurrent, the total term of imprisonment will be

one of six years and ten months’ imprisonment.

[15]     For the offence of possession of the Class C controlled drug cannabis you are convicted and discharged.

[16]     The Sentencing Act requires me to ensure that I impose the least restrictive sentence that I can.  In terms of well settled law I am satisfied that the sentence I am imposing today is the least restrictive sentence that I can impose.   Stand down please.