R v F HC Auckland Cri-2007-090-7023

[2009] NZHC 1755

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2007-090-007023

THE QUEEN

v

F

Appearances: K J Glubb for Crown

D G Young for Prisoner

Judgment:      28 May 2009 at 9:00 am

SENTENCING NOTES OF COURTNEY J

Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, P O Box 2213, Auckland

Fax: [phone] – K Glubb

Counsel:             D G Young, P O Box 105310, Auckland 1143

Fax: [phone]

R V F HC AK CRI-2007-090-007023  28 May 2009

[1]      F  , you appear for sentence following your guilty plea on one charge of possession of a pistol which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of four years and/or a fine not exceeding $5,000.  And you have also pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of pipes for the purpose of consuming methamphetamine.  The maximum penalty for that charge is one years imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $500.

[2]      Both the pistol and the pipes were found during the execution of the search warrant of your home in July 2007.  Following the execution of that search warrant you faced other charges on which you were subsequently acquitted.

[3]      If I spend a moment talking about you personally.  You are 33 years old now. You have no formal qualifications.  I note that you are described as being illiterate and your lawyer says that you are illiterate and have little in the way of education. Your previous employment as a forestry worker was cut short following a back injury and you have been on a sickness benefit for some time.  You have, in the past, been a regular drug user of both cannabis and methamphetamine.  You say now that you have not used either alcohol or drugs for 18 months and it seems that this is partly at the instigation of your partner, which is good to see, and partly because you got a bit of a shock following the death of your friend Mr Adams, which gave rise to the other charges against you.  Your efforts at completing previous drug and alcohol counselling have not been especially successful in the past so I am pleased that you have made an effort yourself to get off the drugs and you are now assessed at a low risk of re-offending if you can stay that way.  My thinking actually is that you will only be able to stay off the drugs and alcohol if you do properly complete drug and alcohol counselling long-term.

[4]      You have a number of previous convictions and they include a drug-related conviction but they are not especially serious.   You have never been imprisoned before.

[5]      The Probation Service recommends a term of community work together with supervision and that recommendation is adopted by both the Crown and your lawyer.

[6]      The obvious drug-related activity in your house is really serious, of serious concern.  But, having said that, I accept the offending is not the most serious of its type and I accept that the pistol that was found was not operable and that there was no ammunition.

[7]      So looking at your personal circumstances and the circumstances of the offending, whilst there is always a need for deterrence and denunciation of drug- related offending, it seems to me that your personal circumstances have acted as a greater deterrent to getting you off the drugs than any sentence this Court could impose.  I just do think though that there will come a time when the shock you got from Mr Adams’ death and perhaps the shock you got from your partner giving you an ultimatum will fade and it will be easy for you to fall back into old ways.  You say no now but that is what human nature is.  I urge you to take whatever help you can get in terms of the counselling that is available for drug and alcohol abuse to make sure that you stay off the drugs for good.

[8]        I impose  term  of  50  hours  community work  on  the  condition  that  you undertake a drug and alcohol programme/relapse prevention group to the satisfaction of the programme provider and Probation Officer.  Stand down.

Mr F   recalled

[9]      Mr F   I am sorry to bring you back.  You can see that your lawyer is not here but he has talked to the Court staff and has said that he is happy for me to talk to you without him being here.  When I imposed the condition that you undertake drug and alcohol counselling I intended at the same time to impose a term of nine months supervision while you do that and I just omitted to do that, so I just got you back here so that I could formally impose the nine months supervision.  Apart from that

the sentence is exactly the same as I said this morning.

P Courtney J