R v Hadfield HC Auckland CRI 2005-004-2755

[2005] NZHC 1747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2005-004-002755

THE QUEEN

v

WARREN ROBERT HADFIELD

Appearances: Ms E Priest for Crown

A Speed for Prisoner

Judgment:      20 May 2005

Six years’ imprisonment

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors:           Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Mr Speed, Auckland

R V HADFIELD HC AK CRI 2005-004-002755 [20 May 2005]

[1]    Warren Robert Hadfield you appear for sentence on one count of importing a Class A drug methamphetamine having pleaded guilty to that charge. The charge you pleaded guilty to carries a maximum term of imprisonment of life imprisonment.

[2]    You are well aware of the background facts. I do not need to traverse them. They  can  be  stated  shortly.  You  arrived  at  Auckland  International  Airport  on  8 February 2005 on an Air New Zealand flight from Japan. You brought with you packages containing the methamphetamine. The total weight of the packages was 800 grams. The methamphetamine was in pure form. It had a street value of approximately $800,000.00.

[3]    In terms of the Sentencing Act I am directed to take into account the purposes of that Act when sentencing you. In your case the purposes that are particularly relevant are:

·     to hold you accountable for the harm done to community by offending, such as importation of serious class A drugs into New Zealand;

·     to promote in you a sense of responsibility for and acknowledgement of that harm;

·     to denounce the conduct that you were involved in; and

·     to deter you and also importantly others from committing the same or similar offences.

[4]In terms of the principles in the Sentencing Act I have regard to:

·     the seriousness of the offence as I am directed to. The seriousness is in this case reflected by the maximum term of imprisonment.

·     I also have regard to the need to achieve consistency with other sentences in cases of this nature.

[5]    Counsel have referred to a number of authorities. I am bound by Court of Appeal authorities. Other decisions of this Court on sentencing are of assistance. I refer to some of those. In R v Wickremasinghe (HC Auckland, T013408, 28 March 2003) Chambers J identified two categories for those who import Class A drugs. In category one are those at the top level, the instigators, the masterminds, the primemovers and controllers. The second category is for people who, while crucial, are not at that top level category. Couriers such as you fit into this second category. Without your involvement the enterprise could not be brought to fruition. In general in that case the Court considered the starting point for people in this second category to be in the region of 12 to 13 years’ imprisonment.

[6]    In the recent decision of Court of Appeal in R v Arthur (CA 382/04, 17 March 2005) that we have heard counsel refer to the Court of Appeal considered the appropriate sentencing levels for the supply of methamphetamine. While not a tariff case as such the Court identified that for large commercial quantities, which they put at 250 grams or more, then a starting point of sentence for supply of eight years or more would be appropriate. But in noting that the Court of Appeal stressed that:

the suggested starting ranges are limited to supply cases. Those who manufacture or import Class A drugs may well incur higher sentences - indeed, much higher sentences - as they are responsible for actually bringing the illegal substance into existence or into the jurisdiction: R v Aramah (1982) 4 Cr App R (S) 407 at 409.

[7]    I also have regard to a number of other cases in this Court particularly R v Sanches Silverio (HC Auckland, CRI 2005-092-3930, 10 May 2005, Laurenson J) and R v Ferry (HC Auckland, CRI 2004-404-006481). Mr Hadfield I take as an appropriate starting point in your case before having regard to mitigating factors 11 years.

[8]    In term of mitigation I have regard to your personal circumstances as they are disclosed in the pre-sentence report. Your personal circumstances are really unremarkable. You have had a failed marriage, a failed business. You have a child. You have volunteered that you have a previous conviction in relation to drugs although I accept it must be minor given the way it was dealt with. I also accept you volunteered that and made that information available of your own volition. I also

accept that in your case obviously you will be serving your sentence in New Zealand away from family and support. The major factor that I can take into account apart from the guilty plea is your remorse, which I accept is reflected by your early acceptance of guilt in this matter.

[9]    On any view of it the most significant mitigating factor I can take into account on your behalf is your very early guilty plea. As counsel have said  it  came at a very early stage in the proceedings. You have saved the community the expense of a trial in relation to your case and the proceedings that preceded trial. It is important that a message be sent that for an early acknowledgement of responsibility and early guilty plea there will be a significant discount. However, in addition to  that, as I have said in your case I take into account your personal circumstances insofar as I am able to do so in a case of this nature. I accept the remorse you have expressed through counsel and I accept that you were a bit player in this importation.

[10]Mr Hadfield, please stand.

[11]   Taking into account all relevant factors you are sentenced to a period of imprisonment of six years for this charge. This case does not require a minimum period of imprisonment. That’s all, you may stand down.

G J Venning J