R v Green - [2014] NZHC 51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2011-077-1751 [2014] NZHC 51

THE QUEEN

v

LEAH MARIE GREEN

Hearing: 4 February 2014

Appearances: C H Macklin for Crown
A Schulze for Prisoner

Judgment: 4 February 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v GREEN [2014] NZHC 51 [4 February 2014]

[1] Ms Green, you have pleaded guilty to charges of supplying methamphetamine and participating in an organised criminal group. You did so after I provided you with a sentence indication on 1 November 2013. In that sentence indication, I took a starting point of four years imprisonment and reduced that by one year to reflect the entry of guilty pleas if they were to be entered shortly after the indication. I left open the possibility of a further reduction based on your personal circumstances including any efforts you may have made to rehabilitate yourself from your drug and alcohol addictions.

[2] You accepted the sentence indication, and entered your pleas on that basis. It now falls for me to pass sentence on you taking into account such additional matters as are appropriate at this stage.

[3] I do not propose to recite the facts of your offending. My sentence indication will be attached to my sentencing remarks and the facts can be gleaned from that. In short, however, you assisted your mother, Ms Sharon Mihaka, in the acquisition and distribution of methamphetamine to a circle of associates. You received rewards in the form of methamphetamine for your own use and other items such as food and, on occasions, some cash. I accept that your offending arose in large part as a result of your close association with Ms Mihaka, and your dependence on methamphetamine.

[4] Your counsel urges me to take two further matters into account today. First, he advised me this morning that Keane J delivered yesterday a decision in relation to a disputed facts hearing that he held in December 2013 in relation to Ms Mihaka.1 In that decision, the Judge rejected the Crown’s assertion that Ms Mihaka could be shown to have been in possession of approximately 270 grams of methamphetamine. He found instead that it was likely that she was only in possession for sentencing purposes of around 160 grams.

[5] Your counsel submits that this is relevant to the sentence to be imposed on you because I recorded in my sentence indication that Ms Mihaka came into

possession of approximately 271 grams of methamphetamine during the period covered by the indictment. As a result, your counsel submits that your overall culpability should now be regarded as less than was the case when I delivered my sentence indication. Secondly, your counsel asks me to take into account your remorse and the efforts that you have made to rehabilitate yourself.

[6] I have now had the opportunity of reading the decision delivered yesterday by Keane J. I accept that the Judge has found that Ms Mihaka was in possession of no more than 160 grams. Importantly,…

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 Green

Details

AGLC: R v Green [2014] NZHC 51
Case: [2014] NZHC 51
Decision Date: 4 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leah Marie Green has been sentenced for her involvement in the supply of methamphetamine and her participation in an organised criminal group. The case, heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Rotorua, involved a detailed examination of Green's role in her mother's drug distribution activities. The legal issues before the court involved determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing and assessing mitigating factors such as Green's rehabilitation efforts and her role as a secondary participant in the criminal activities.

The court recognised that Green played a supporting role in her mother's drug operations, primarily assisting in the distribution and management of the drugs. The starting point for sentencing was set at four years imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of her involvement. However, the court took into account the fact that Green had made efforts to rehabilitate herself from drug and alcohol addiction, including attending and completing a counselling course. Despite these efforts, the court determined that the starting point should remain unchanged as Green's role as an assistant did not justify a reduction. The court, however, reduced the sentence by six months to reflect Green's personal efforts towards rehabilitation and her role as a caring mother, which would be impacted by any period of imprisonment.

Green was sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment for participating in an organised criminal group and two years for supplying methamphetamine. The sentences are to be served concurrently, reflecting the court's consideration of her mitigating factors while maintaining the seriousness of her criminal conduct. The court also emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing, ensuring that the sentence imposed was just and reflected the circumstances of the case.

Orders