R v F - [2018] NZHC 3377

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE NAME, ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF MS F, PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-044-4279

[2018] NZHC 3377

THE QUEEN

v

F

Hearing: 18 December 2018

Appearances:

N R Webby for the Crown M N Pecotic for Defendant

Judgment:

18 December 2018

SENTENCING BY PALMER J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland
M N Pecotic, Barrister, Auckland

R v F [2018] NZHC 3377 [18 December 2018]

Introduction

[1] Methamphetamine destroys lives and communities. Those dealing in methamphetamine cause, and profit from, human misery. That is why, in 2003, methamphetamine was reclassified as a class A drug in New Zealand. It “appeals to vulnerable populations, has a high physical and psychological dependence potential, and can lead to long-term physical and psychological effects”.1 It is one the most dangerous of drugs, which is why the maximum sentence for possessing or supplying methamphetamine is life imprisonment.

[2] Ms F pleaded guilty to two charges of supply of methamphetamine and one charge of supplying cocaine, another class A drug, in 2016. I sentence her for that offending today. Today also, by consent, the Crown withdraws the remaining ten charges against her. She faces further charges in April 2019 so her name and identifying particulars are suppressed until then to preserve her fair trial rights.

Approach to sentencing

[3] Sentencing is conducted for the purposes, and according to the principles, in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002. In terms of the principles of sentencing, here, I have regard to: the gravity of the offending and Ms F’s culpability; the seriousness of these offences compared with others; the need to ensure the sentence is consistent with other sentences for this type of offending; Ms F’s particular circumstances and background; and the requirement to impose the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances.

[4] In terms of the purposes of sentencing Ms F, I have particular regard to: the need to hold her accountable for the harm her offending has done to the community; the need to promote in her a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgement of, that harm; the need to denounce the conduct in which she was involved; and the need to protect the community from her offending in future. A significant sentence of imprisonment is required to achieve those purposes as well as for any deterrent effect it may have.

1 Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003: Report of the Health Committee (April 2003) at 3.

[5] The methodology of sentencing is first to set a starting point reflecting the seriousness of the offending, then to make adjustments for the offender’s personal circumstances and any guilty plea and finally to stand back to check the sentence reflects the totality of the offending.

[6] In sentencing Mr Riki Wellington and Ms Chevonne Wellington, with whom Ms F was to be tried before…

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 F

Details

AGLC: R v F [2018] NZHC 3377
Case: [2018] NZHC 3377
Decision Date: 18 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Ms F, who pleaded guilty to charges of supplying methamphetamine and cocaine. The court sentenced her after considering the gravity of the offending, her culpability, and her personal circumstances. The Crown argued for a starting point of 18 years' imprisonment, while the defence argued for a starting point within the upper region of band 2 and lower region of band 3 of Fatu, leading to a total starting point of 13 years' imprisonment. The court found that Ms F played an important and crucial role in the offending but was not the kingpin, and accepted the Crown's submission that the starting point for her involvement in the supply of 14.9 kilograms of methamphetamine in September 2016 should be 13 years' imprisonment. The court applied an uplift of one year for the cocaine and a further uplift of four years for the nine kilograms of methamphetamine supplied in November, resulting in an overall starting point of 18 years' imprisonment. The court made adjustments for Ms F's personal circumstances, including her previous good character, and discounted the sentence by around ten per cent, or 22 months. The court also made a discount of just over ten per cent or 20 months for pleading guilty. The resulting sentence of imprisonment for 14 years and six months appropriately reflected the overall gravity of Ms F's offending. The court declined to impose a minimum period of imprisonment, as it did not consider a particularly long non-parole period necessary to protect the community from Ms F.

The final orders of the court were that Ms F be sentenced to 14 years and six months' imprisonment for her conviction for supplying 14.9 kilograms of methamphetamine, 11 years' imprisonment for her conviction of supplying nine kilograms of methamphetamine, concurrently with the other sentences, and seven years' imprisonment for her conviction of supplying 1.9 kilograms of cocaine, concurrently with the other sentences. Her end sentence was 14 years and six months' imprisonment.

Orders