R v Farrow

[2014] NZHC 2576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2012-070-4753 [2014] NZHC 2576

THE QUEEN

v

TRACEY ANGELA FARROW

Hearing:	15 October 2014
Appearances:	H A Wrigley for Crown A C Balme for Prisoner
Sentence:	15 October 2014

SENTENCE OF KEANE J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

R v FARROW [2014] NZHC 2576 [15 October 2014]

[1]      Tracey Farrow you are for sentence, having been found guilty at trial of conspiring between 7 – 9 December 2012 to manufacture methamphetamine at your Katikati address and, on 8 December 2012, of offering to supply methamphetamine

[2]      Your principal offence for sentence is the conspiracy and in sentencing your co-offenders, most notably Karl Goldsbury, I have held that your conspiracy was largely accomplished at the home you then shared with your then partner, Terrence Jones, in Katikati, and that the likely yield must have approached 250 grams.

[3]      The sentence I must impose on you for your lead offence turns then on what role you played.  The offer to supply offence will not have a bearing on your final sentence.

Crown submission

[4]      As to the conspiracy, the Crown contends you are largely to be equated with, but played a lesser part than, your then partner, Terrence Jones; and now, having regard to my findings as to his part, contends for a starting point of  two and a half years imprisonment.

[5]      You and Mr Jones,  the Crown contends, agreed as early as 7 December 2012 to allow your home to be used and that night you must have met Mr Goldsbury when he called.   On 8 December, you first obtained ice for Mr Goldsbury so he could manufacture,  then vacated  your home.   You  must  have been  aware,  the Crown contends, of the scale of manufacture.  And it no coincidence that, when the equipment was destroyed and the fire erupted, you, like the others, left at the last minute.

[6]      The Crown accepts that your offer to supply methamphetamine to your sister was relatively minor, but opposes a sentence of home detention, should you warrant a short term of imprisonment.  It relies especially on R v Bate,1  where a two and a

half year starting point was taken for allowing premises to be used.

1      R v Bate [2014] NZHC 237.

Defence submissions

[7]      For the conspiracy,  your counsel  contends  for  a two  year starting point. There was, he submits, a chain conspiracy in which Mr Goldsbury prevailed on Mr Carroll, Mr Carroll prevailed on Mr Jones and Mr Jones on you.   To permit your home to be used you vacated it.  But otherwise all you did was to go with Mr Jones to collect ice.

[8]      Your counsel submits that R v Bate is distinguishable.  In that case the person who permitted property to be used got a cash payment.  There is no evidence that you got any reward.  The converse is the case.  You lost everything.  Your counsel relies on your pre-sentence report, which though not uncritical of you, commends a sentence of home detention coupled with community work.

Conclusion

[9]      I accept you were the least involved in the conspiracy and, while you did allow your home to be used, you were the last person in the chain, and may have been influenced by Mr Jones. Your part was minimal.  There is no evidence that you were to get any reward.  I take a starting point of two years.

[10]     I have then to ask myself, under s 16 of the Sentencing Act 2002, whether the purposes of sentence, accountability, denunciation and deterrence, can only be adequately served by a sentence of imprisonment.  On the material I have about you, those purposes could be equally well served in your case, and more positively, by a sentence of home detention.

[11]     You  will  be  sentenced  for  both  your  offences  to  home  detention  for  12 months, to commence tomorrow, 16 October 2014, subject to the conditions in your pre-sentence report; and then on your release to the further conditions the report sets

out. You will complete 200 hours community work.

P.J. Keane J