R v Blackwell

[2012] NZHC 2960

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI 2011-054-463 [2012] NZHC 2960

THE QUEEN

v

WADE JAMES BLACKWELL

Hearing:         8 November 2012 (Heard at Wellington)

Counsel:         J Eng for Crown

V C Nisbet for Accused

Sentence:       8 November 2012

SENTENCE OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1]      Mr Blackwell, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.  Your guilty plea came after a sentence indication by me of two years and six months’ imprisonment.

[2]      Your offending was part of a Police investigation called “Operation Stamp”. That intercepted a large number of communications into a substantial methamphetamine network of which you were a member.

R V WADE JAMES BLACKWELL HC PMN CRI 2011-054-463 [8 November 2012]

[3]      The Crown accept that your role was as a street dealer at the low end of the operation.  The facts are simple and straight forward.  On 10 December 2010, you purchased 11 grams of methamphetamine.   The purpose of the purchase was to on-sell  it  to  others  for profit.    This  emphasises  the  commercial  aspect  of  your arrangement.

[4]      The pre-sentence report notes you are 35 years of age living with your cousin in Palmerston North.   You have three children, the youngest three months of age. The two older children reside in Taranaki with their mother.  It is to your credit that you still have a good relationship with her and you see the children regularly.  You have employment as a roofer.

[5]      As to the probation report, you told the probation officer that you had no plans  to  associate  with  the  other  offenders  but  knew  Mr Matthews,  one  of  the co-accused, as a friend.  You say you have never been a member of a gang.  It seems that you got involved in the offending because in 2004 you purchased a car from Mr Matthews.  You were to repay him by regular payments.  You slipped behind in those payments and as a result you were pressured and agreed to repay the debt by dealing in drugs for Mr Matthews.

[6]      You have used methamphetamine yourself but only occasionally and say that you are not dependent on it.  The probation officer accesses your risk of reoffending as low and notes the gap between current offending and  your past offending is significant.  You do, however, have 11 previous convictions but none for drugs.  You have not previously been sentenced to prison.

[7]      The Crown submit that a proper starting point is three and a half years’ imprisonment.    They  say  a  15  to  20 per cent  discount  for  your  guilty  plea  is appropriate but with no further allowances.   Your counsel submits that the proper starting point is three  years’ imprisonment taking into account the fact that the methamphetamine was 55 per cent purity below the 60 per cent level of purity set in

R v Fatu.[1]   He submits further that you should have a 20 to 25 per cent deduction for

your guilty plea and a further reduction for your restricted terms of bail.

[1] R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72.

[8]      I consider the proper starting point is three and a half years’ imprisonment. This reflects your position relative to other co-offenders and the guideline judgments in this area and of course the facts of your offending.

[9]      As to mitigation, I consider a 20 per cent deduction should be given for your guilty plea.  This is a generous allowance given the guilty plea came 18 months after your first appearance and shortly before trial.  It does, however, take into account the complexity of the case and is consistent with other co-offenders.

[10]     As to mitigation for bail, initially you were remanded in custody for a week. You were then released on bail with a 24 hour curfew for two months and after that an evening curfew. You were subject to that curfew for seven to eight months before it was finally deleted.  There have been two breaches of curfew but they have, to a degree, been explained.   A modest allowance, therefore, for bail restrictions and purity is appropriate.

[11]     Giving 20 per cent for your guilty plea and a modest allowance for bail and purity from the starting point of three and a half  years’ imprisonment  means a sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment.

[12]     Mr Blackwell, before I formally sentence you I want to say this.  Having read the probation report and considered your background, I express the hope that this will be the last time that the Courts see you.  You have three young children whom you should be looking after.  It is difficult to look after them while you are in prison. I hope that the probation report does reflect correctly that the chance of you reoffending again is slim.

[13]     Your children deserve a father. You are a man of some ability and talent.  It is time your criminal career, if I can call it that, was ended.  I hope the Parole Board take into account my remarks.   I express the hope that they may consider you are someone who might be released as early as possible to give you the chance to prove

that you can have a crime free life.

Ronald Young J

Solicitors:

J Eng, Luke Cunningham & Clere, Wellington, email:  [email protected]
V C Nisbet, Wellington, email:  [email protected]