Legal Research
Cases
R v Geldard

R v Geldard

Case [2019] NZHC 1351 14 June 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-404-277

[2019] NZHC 1351

THE QUEEN

v

NADINE GELDARD

Hearing: 14 June 2019

Appearances:

S Teppett for the Crown M Ryan for the Defendant

Sentence:

14 June 2019

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland Counsel: M Ryan, Auckland

R v GELDARD [2019] NZHC 1351 [14 June 2019]

Introduction

[1] Ms Geldard, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a representative charge of supplying 10 to 15 grams of methamphetamine.1 The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.2

[2] The facts of your offending are set out in my sentence indication. I will not repeat them here. My sentence indication will be attached to these remarks and form part of them. In short, you dealt in around 10 to 15 grams of methamphetamine with 13 individuals between 1 August 2015 and 31 March 2016.

Approach to sentencing

[3] Ms Geldard, sentencing involves three steps. First, I must set a starting point which reflects the gravity of your offending. Secondly, allowance is made for personal aggravating and mitigating factors. Finally, there is a discount for a guilty plea.

[4] In sentencing you today, I am required to take into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as contained in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

[5] 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 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.

[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.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c).
2 Section 6(2)(a).

Starting point

[7] In my sentence indication I said that a starting point of three years and two months’ imprisonment was appropriate in your case.

[8] R v Fatu is the applicable guideline judgment for sentencing for supply of methamphetamine.3 The starting point indicated is at the lower end of Band Two (five to 250 grams) of the R v Fatu bands. This is appropriate, taking into account the amount of methamphetamine involved, the moderate commercial nature of your offending and penalties in analogous cases (discussed in my sentence indication).

[9]There are no mitigating factors relevant to the offending.

Personal circumstances

[10] I have received the Provision of Advice to the Court (the PAC report), which was not available to me at the sentence indication.

Medical condition

[11] I first turn to your medical condition as a personal mitigating factor. This factor was discussed in my sentence indication. Given that…

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 Geldard

Details

AGLC: R v Geldard [2019] NZHC 1351
Case: [2019] NZHC 1351
Decision Date: 14 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Nadine Geldard was sentenced for supplying 10 to 15 grams of methamphetamine, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Geldard pleaded guilty to the charge, and the court imposed a sentence of 12 months' home detention, subject to certain conditions. The court applied a three-step approach to sentencing, setting a starting point of three years and two months' imprisonment, before considering personal mitigating and aggravating factors, and then applying a discount for a guilty plea. The court took into account Geldard's medical condition, her remorse, and her compliance with bail conditions. The court also considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including the need to denounce the offending, deter Geldard and others from committing similar offences, and promote a sense of responsibility in Geldard. The court ultimately decided that home detention was the most appropriate sentence for Geldard, given her medical condition and her efforts to rehabilitate.

The court ordered that Geldard serve 12 months' home detention, subject to a number of conditions. These included that Geldard was not to possess or consume any non-prescription drugs or alcohol, and was to be subject to random testing. Geldard was also to be assessed for a substance abuse programme, including a residential programme if assessed as suitable. Additionally, Geldard was not to associate with or contact a particular individual without the prior written approval of a Probation Officer. The court's decision was based on a consideration of the purposes and principles of sentencing, as well as the personal circumstances of the offender.

Orders