R v Belmont

[2016] NZHC 2622

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-082-001882 [2016] NZHC 2622

THE QUEEN

v

LUKE WILLIAM BELMONT

Counsel:

S W P Woods for Crown

B A Crowley for Defendant

Sentence:

2 November 2016

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1]      Mr Belmont, you are to be sentenced this morning in relation to one charge of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine.

[2]      You pleaded guilty to that charge after I re-instated the sentence indication issued by Simon France J on 9 September 2016.  That sentence indication was for

21 months’ imprisonment.  I explained that Simon France J clearly did not rule out the possibility of home detention being granted and that if the pre-sentence reports enabled me to do so, I would give serious consideration to the imposition of a sentence of home detention.

[3]      This morning I shall:

(1)       summarise your offending;

R v BELMONT [2016] NZHC 2622 [2 November 2016]

(2)       explain the starting point I have adopted;

(3)       explain the adjustments I will make to the starting point; and

(4)       explain the sentence I will impose.

Your offending

[4]      In 2013-2014 the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand along with the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Customs Service conducted  an  18  month  investigation  codenamed  “Operation  Gandolf”.    This targeted the activities of an organised criminal group involved in the importation and distribution of methamphetamine throughout New Zealand.   You were one of the defendants involved in this group.

[5]      The organised criminal group centred on your co-defendant, Mr Atta.  The investigation identified that Mr Atta co-ordinated the importation of methamphetamine from Thailand by providing information and confirming transactions by phone calls and text messages.

Conspiracy to supply methamphetamine

[6]      At the time of your offending you were a serving prisoner.  You rang Mr Atta to pursue a previous conversation about Mr Atta supplying you with methamphetamine.    At the time Mr Atta was waiting on a package of methamphetamine.

[7]      Mr Atta offered to give you seven grams to sell on his behalf.  You were to sell it at $800 a gram and explained that you could keep half of the money.  There was talk of this then being repeated. Seven grams of methamphetamine has a street value of $7,000.

[8]      You offered no explanation for your offending.

Personal circumstances

[9]      You are 28 years old and you have previously appeared before the court. Your most serious convictions include assault with intent and wounding with intent to injure. You have no previous drug-related offences.

Starting point

[10]     The tariff judgment for supplying methamphetamine is R v Fatu.1     Your offending   sits   at   the   bottom   end   of   band   two,   where   the   quantity   of methamphetamine supplied is seven grams and a starting point of around three years is appropriate.  This needs to be reduced to reflect the lower maximum penalty for conspiracy however.  It is also relevant that in terms of the arrangement between you and Mr Atta, no drugs were ever supplied.

[11]     I  follow  the  starting  point  adopted  by  Simon  France  J  in  his  sentence

indication which was two years’ imprisonment.

Adjustments to starting point

[12]     An uplift of four months is warranted for your offending having occurred while in jail.

Personal mitigating factors

Rehabilitation and remorse

[13]     I have read and considered a number of letters of support that have been presented to me.  Those letters suggest that you are a person with potential and that since the birth of your son you have shown real signs of maturity.

Guilty plea

[14]     You are entitled to a credit for your guilty plea.2   I will give you a 25 per cent discount because you pleaded guilty soon after Simon France J’s sentence indication was re-instated, once it was clarified.

Home detention

[15]     This  results  in  a  provisional  sentence  of  21  months’  imprisonment.    A

sentence of that amount enables me to consider home detention.

Pre-sentence report

[16]     The pre-sentence report explains that while a sentence of home detention is technically feasible, there are real risks in sentencing you to home detention.

Assessment

[17]     I am willing to take a risk and sentence you to home detention.  I warn you, however, that if you fail to comply with the terms of your home detention sentence or offend in any way you are likely to be sentenced to prison.

[18]     Calculating the length of a sentence of home detention is not a mathematical exercise.    In  your  circumstances,  I  believe  the  appropriate  sentence  is  one  of

10 months’ home detention. That is the sentence which I will impose.

[19]     The terms and conditions of your sentence of home detention will be in the usual form.   They will be provided to you in writing before you leave court.   In particular:

(1)You are not to possess, consume or use any alcohol or drugs that are not prescribed to you.

(2)You  are  to  attend  and  complete  an  appropriate  alcohol  and  drug programme to the satisfaction of a probation officer.  The specific

details  of  the  appropriate  programme  shall  be  determined  by  a probation officer.

(3)You  are  to  travel  directly to  the  detention  address  and  await  the connection of the monitoring equipment.

(4)You are not to undertake any type of employment, voluntary work or training without the prior written approval of a probation officer.

[20]     Your sentence of home detention will commence at 12 noon, 3 November

2016.

[21]     Stand down.

D B Collins J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Wellington