R v Cole - [2022] NZHC 1064

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-6031

[2022] NZHC 1064

THE QUEEN

v

YOICHI MARTIN COLE

Hearing: 13 May 2022

Appearances:

K Whyte for the Crown

G D Prentice on instructions from W N Dollimore for the Defendant

Judgment:

13 May 2022

(REDACTED) SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

This judgment is delivered by me on 13 May 2022 at 1pm.

.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Kaleb Whyte, Crown Solicitor, Hamilton Glen Prentice, Barrister, Hamilton

R v COLE [2022] NZHC 1064 [13 May 2022]

Introduction

[1]Mr Cole, you appear for sentencing on the following charges:1

(a)Supplying a Class A drug (methamphetamine);2

(b)Supplying a Class A drug (gamma-butyrolactone aka GBL);3

(c)Offering to supply a Class A drug (GBL).4

[2]The maximum penalty for dealing methamphetamine is life imprisonment.

[3] The facts of your offending are set out in my sentence indication.5 I will not repeat them here. My sentence indication will be attached to these remarks and form part of them. In brief, you acted as a street level dealer and supplied 0.5 of a gram of methamphetamine on one occasion, and unspecified amounts on two occasions. You also supplied GBL on three occasions and offered to supply GBL on three further occasions.

[4] On 24 March 2022 I gave a sentence indication of eight months’ imprisonment, with the possibility of Home Detention or a community-based sentence. You accepted this indication on 1 April 2022 and pleaded guilty to all charges.

Approach to Sentencing

[5] Mr Cole, in sentencing you today, I am required to take into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as contained in the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act).6 In particular, I must impose a sentence which: holds you accountable for the harm methamphetamine offending does to the community; promotes in you a sense of responsibility and acknowledgement of that harm; denounces your conduct; and deters

1      The defendant was charged with two charges of supplying methamphetamine. The two charges have been amalgamated for sentencing purposes.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2): maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(c) and (2): maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(c) and (2): maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
5      R v Cole [2022] NZHC 557.
6      Sections 7 and 8.

you and any other person from committing similar offences in future. The sentence I impose must also reflect the gravity of your offending, the seriousness of this type of offending and the desirability of consistency with appropriate sentencing levels.7

[6] On the other hand, I must be mindful of the need to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. Accordingly, I must impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.8

Personal circumstances

PAC report

[7] I have been provided with a Provision of Advice to the Court (PAC report), dated 27 April 2022. This a report prepared by the Department of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Cole

Details

AGLC: R v Cole [2022] NZHC 1064
Case: [2022] NZHC 1064
Decision Date: 13 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cole was heard and decided in the High Court of New Zealand Hamilton Registry on 13 May 2022. The defendant, Yoichi Martin Cole, was charged with three drug-related offences: supplying a Class A drug (methamphetamine), supplying a Class A drug (gamma-butyrolactone or GBL), and offering to supply a Class A drug (GBL). The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the need to hold the defendant accountable for his actions with the aim of facilitating his rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were the appropriate sentence to impose on the defendant, considering both the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's personal circumstances. The court had to take into account the purposes and principles of sentencing, as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002, which includes holding the offender accountable, promoting a sense of responsibility, denouncing the conduct, and deterring the offender and others from committing similar offences. The court also had to consider the defendant's personal circumstances, including his background, the presence of any mitigating factors, and his prospects for rehabilitation.

The court found that the defendant's addiction to methamphetamine and GBL was a significant mitigating factor, as his offending was driven by his need to support his own drug use. The court accepted the defendant's remorse and his efforts towards rehabilitation while on bail. Considering these factors, the court decided on a sentence of three months' Community Detention, with additional conditions, and 12 months of Intensive Supervision, which included attending an alcohol and drug programme and submitting to drug testing. This sentence was deemed appropriate as it would allow the defendant to continue his progress towards addiction recovery while on bail and would facilitate his reintegration into the community.

The court's decision reflects a balanced approach to sentencing that considers both the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's personal circumstances, with an emphasis on promoting rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

Orders