R v Evans HC Ham CRI 2006-019-8926
[2008] NZHC 2319
•13 May 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY
CRI 2006-019-8926
THE QUEEN
v
JASON EDWARD EVANS
Charges:Possession of methamphetamine for supply (2); Supplying methamphetamine;
Possession of LSD for supply (2); Possession of MDMA for supply (3); Possession of cannabis for supply (2); Unlawful possession of a pipe (2); Offering to supply cannabis;
Unlawful possession of a restricted weapon; Unlawful possession of explosives
Plea: Guilty
Appearances: Ross Douch for Crown
Roger Laybourn for Prisoner
Sentenced: 13 May 2008
3 years 3 months imprisonment
SENTENCING NOTES OF HARRISON J
SOLICITORS
Almao Douch (Hamilton) for Crown
Roger Laybourn (Hamilton) for Prisoner
R V EVANS HC HAM CRI 2006-019-8926 13 May 2008
Introduction
[1] Mr Evans, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to two charges of possessing methamphetamine for supply, one of supplying methamphetamine, two of possessing Lysergide or LSD for supply, one of supplying methamphetamine, three of possessing MDMA or ecstasy for supply, two of possessing cannabis for supply, two of unlawful possession of a pipe, and one each of unlawful possession of a restricted weapon, unlawful possession of explosives and offering to supply cannabis.
[2] That is a depressing list. The most significant for sentencing purposes are the charges of supplying methamphetamine and of possessing methamphetamine and Lysergide for supply. Each of them carries a maximum term of imprisonment of life. The other offences render you eligible to terms of imprisonment of up to
14 years.
[3] I can tell you now that the sentences I impose will be concurrent; that is, on each charge you will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which is to be served side by side or at the same time with all the others. They are not cumulative or added together.
[4] Before dealing with the formal parts of the sentencing exercise, I acknowledge in Court today the presence of your parents, your brother, and a friend. Their courtesy and support mean a lot and will be reflected in the sentence I impose.
Facts
[5] I must deal first with the facts. Again they fall into a depressingly familiar pattern.
[6] On 16 November 2006 the police executed a search warrant on the sleep-out you occupy at your parents address in Gordonton. In two security lock boxes the police found 15.5 grams of methamphetamine, five tabs of Lysergide, and six tablets containing ecstasy. Additionally there were more than 100 small snaplock bags of
the type used to distribute methamphetamine. There was 38.5 grams of cannabis plant material. Also found were scales capable of weighing drugs, calculators and
$2,300 in cash. A pipe used for smoking methamphetamine was located in your vehicle; another one was found in your bedroom. Finally, the police found a functional taser device or stun gun.
[7] When spoken to by the police officers you denied possession of the drugs. The reason for your denial defies belief. Nevertheless you admitted possession of the cannabis. Everything present at that address was consistent with the operations of a supplier in illegal drugs on a reasonably substantial scale. You were charged and granted bail.
[8] On 30 November 2006, that is a fortnight later, an undercover police officer met you near Hamilton Lake. In that meeting you produced a bag containing several small bags full of methamphetamine. The undercover police officer formed the view that at least five of those small bags were in your possession. You told him that the methamphetamine was for sale. You said that each bag contained a gram and the sale price was $650 each. You later produced two tabs of LSD. You showed the undercover police officer up to eight ecstasy tablets. You offered them for sale at
$40 each. To complete your showcase of goods for sale, you produced a quantity of cannabis buds.
[9] A short time later you and the police officer had another discussion. You challenged him about being an undercover agent. He denied it. You then had a further discussion with him. You repeated largely what you had told him before. You did say, though, additionally that you could get him an ounce of methamphetamine for $12,500, equalling a price per gram of $460. Again, by way of offering discounts for bulk, you said that you could provide the officer 1000 ecstasy tablets at a price of $20 each. By contrast, the sale price individually was
$40.
[10] Later you and the police officer had another meeting. On this occasion methamphetamine was purchased. The transaction went ahead at $660 in cash. You
told the police officer you could find more cannabis by kilogram weight if he preferred.
[11] You were able to remain at large for another four months. The police did not locate you until 23 March 2007. On that occasion you had $3,500 cash in your possession together with 10 tablets of ecstasy. Also you were in possession of a pipe for smoking methamphetamine. In a slightly sinister development, the police found eight .223 calibre bullets and one .32 calibre pistol bullet.
[12] I am sure, Mr Evans, that neither you nor your family nor your friends feel any pride in listening to that narrative of your offending.
Starting Point
[13] Against that background I must come to the starting point for your sentence. The starting point is the term of imprisonment which is appropriate for the circumstances of your offending before I take into account any mitigating or favourable circumstances or aggravating or adverse personal circumstances.
[14] I do not need to dwell long on the starting point. There is a measure of consensus between Mr Douch and Mr Laybourn. Here you fall into the band recognised by the Court as a medium level dealer in illegal drugs. I do not need to spell out to you the destructive effect of methamphetamine in particular. You know, Mr Evans. You have been addicted to it. It destroys families; it destroys relationships. Most importantly it is destructive of your own life.
[15] There are two particularly aggravating features. One is that you were involved for personal and financial gain. The other is that you committed the second set of offences while on bail.
[16] The starting point must make you accountable; that is, punish you. It must also reflect the multiplicity of your offences; that is, the totality of your offending. It must deter you and others. It must denounce what you did.
[17] Taking all those factors into account I am satisfied that an appropriate starting point, and one which is not adverse to you, is six-and-a-half years imprisonment on the lead charges of supplying methamphetamine.
Mitigation
[18] I now come to the mitigating or favourable features. There are many.
[19] Despite the fact that, as Mr Douch has emphasised, you have a criminal history involving drugs going back to 1995, there are encouraging signs. You are
29 years of age. You are a single man who has lived in a stable relationship. I accept that the literacy problems referred to by the probation service and by Ms Thame, who has written a moving letter on your behalf, have affected your life. But at a certain time those problems cease to be an excuse for criminality, as you know.
[20] You are unusually fortunate. You have a strong and loving family. As I said, they are here to support you today. They want to help you through rehabilitation if that is possible.
[21] You entered pleas after a year in custody. I am satisfied with Mr Laybourn’s explanation for the delay. That period in prison seems to have served a beneficial purpose. Mr Laybourn says that the light has been turned on. I hope he is right. There are very positive features of your life over the past year. You have completed prison courses designed to help you deal with your drug addiction. You have also acted in a way which has put yourself at some risk. You have shown a degree of insight into your offending.
[22] The probation officer expresses some optimism. He says that you have been assessed by the Salvation Army. You want to enter their programme when you are released from prison. He considers that your readiness and motivation to change are medium to high. He recognises, of course, that once you are released back into the community you will become immediately at risk. While in prison, Mr Evans, you will have to use your time to develop tools and mechanisms to lower that risk.
[23] Additionally there are special circumstances in your case.
[24] Taking all those factors into account, you are entitled to a credit of 50% against your starting point of six-and-a-half years imprisonment. The sentences imposed on you are as follows—
• Possession of methamphetamine for supply (2): 3 years 3 months imprisonment
• Supplying methamphetamine: 3 years 3 months imprisonment
• Possession of LSD for supply (2): 2 years imprisonment
• Possession of MDMA for supply (3): 2 years imprisonment
• Possession of cannabis for supply (2): 1 year imprisonment
• Unlawful possession of a pipe (2): 3 months imprisonment
• Offering to supply cannabis: 3 months imprisonment
• Unlawful possession of a restricted weapon: 3 months imprisonment
• Unlawful possession of explosives: 3 months imprisonment
[25] I discharge you on all other counts in the indictment under s 347 Crimes Act
1961.
[26] I make an order for forfeiture of the amounts of cash seized by the police.
[27] In an attempt to assist in your rehabilitation, Mr Evans, I make an order, as
Mr Laybourn has submitted, remitting all outstanding fines of $5,311.
[28] There you are. If you have reached a turning point in your life, Mr Evans, I would support you. I hope you take advantage of all the opportunities that have been presented to you with the support that your family and friend have shown through
times which must have severely tested their faith in you and the relationship. It is up to you. You know, Mr Evans, that if you commit any further drug offences you will go to prison and you will go to prison for a long time. I hope that you do not come
back before a Court of law for these sorts of crimes again. Please stand down.
Rhys Harrison J
0
0
0