R v Halliday-Walters
[2024] NZHC 520
•12 March 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE
CRI-2023-027-526
[2024] NZHC 520
THE KING v
HAUKINO HALLIDAY-WALTERS
Hearing: 12 March 2024 Appearances:
G Kelly for the Crown
C Cull KC for the Defendant
Sentencing:
12 March 2024
SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J
Solicitors: Marsden Woods Inskip Smith (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Whangarei Counsel: C Cull KC, Kaikohe
R v HALLIDAY-WALTERS [2024] NZHC 520 [12 March 2024]
Introduction
[1]Mr Halliday-Walters, you have pleaded guilty to the following charges:
(a)attempted murder;
(b)discharging a firearm with reckless disregard;
(c)unlawful possession of explosives (that is the ammunition);
(d)unlawful possession of a firearm; and
(e)possession of methamphetamine for supply.
[2] I gave a sentencing indication on 6 December 2023, and you pleaded guilty on the same day.
Factual background
[3] I set out the facts in full in the sentencing indication, a copy of which will be annexed to these sentencing notes. In short, you discharged a firearm approximately 20 times towards the victim. You said you were aiming the gun at the victim’s head “for an instant kill”. In aiming at the victim, shots hit a neighbouring house and people inside, including children, had to drop to the floor in fear of their lives. After your arrest, the Police located approximately 6.28 grams of methamphetamine in a range of small resealable bags and plastic containers in your bedroom. The Police also located 191 rounds of live ammunition of varying calibre.
Pre-sentence report
[4] The pre-sentence report states that you present with minimal criminal history, in total, two convictions relating to driving. The report writer identified offending- related factors as your use of violence, drug use and lifestyle. Your past trauma is deemed to have been a contributing factor to your actions. This encompasses family violence and harm to which you were subjected from an early age, both physical and
emotional. You cited this abuse from the victim as resulting in your offending, with the victim’s actions following the death of your sister as the “breaking point”.
[5] You reported that you have had long associations with drugs, starting from ages 13 or 14. The report writer identified the close relationship you have with your mother and grandmother and the support you have from your social worker, with whom you have been working since you were a student at Bay of Islands College and at whose home you resided while on EM bail.
[6] Your risk of reoffending is assessed as low, unless you return to a life of drug dealing and you have any subsequent contact with the victim. Your risk of harm to others is assessed as high, as you have had limited opportunity to address your drug use and violent behaviour, particularly your propensity to use firearms. The report writer recommends a sentence of imprisonment. Leave to apply for home detention could be considered.
Cultural report
[7] A cultural report has also been provided to me, authored by Messalena Reti. Your counsel, Ms Cull, has helpfully advised me that the report writer resides in the community with you and your whānau and her insight has informed the report. The report writer identified numerous factors to form the basis of the causative link between your background and your offending.
[8] The report writer emphasised the difficult relationship between you and the victim, your father Dwain. According to your mother Lori, your relationship with your father was one where you were always trying to seek approval only to be “let down time and time again”. You reported that, for the last 12 years or so, you were “beaten up” by your father. There was also emotional and verbal abuse. You also observed your father’s abuse of your mother. The incident of the offending was “the straw the broke the camel’s back”. You reported that this history of abuse and the grief and loss from your sister’s death motivated your offending.
[9] You reported that “growing up, drugs and alcohol were commonplace”. Both of your parents were cannabis users and consumed alcohol, until your mother left her
relationship with your father. Unfortunately, your father carried on the tradition and turned to harder drugs for his “daily fix”. You started smoking marijuana when you were about 13 or 14 years old and drinking alcohol approximately a year earlier. You used drugs and alcohol to “block out the hurt and disappointment” you felt when you thought that you did not measure up to your father’s expectations. You eventually began to use methamphetamine.
[10] The report writer also took the opportunity to highlight the positive relationships you have in your life, namely your mother, your maternal grandmother and your partner and child. Alongside your family, you are supported by a social worker, who has worked with you and supported you for a significant period of time.
[11] The report writer noted your remorse for the offending. You acknowledged that when you initially spoke to the Police, you were in a heightened state and, from your statements, it appears as though you did not care and you were not sorry for your actions. However, you now report that you were sorry for what happened that day and, although you are sorry to your father, you also want to be able to say sorry to the neighbours and anyone around at the time.
[12] The report writer concluded that there are clear links between your past and your offending. In her view, the disadvantages as demonstrated by your background factors mitigate your moral culpability for the offending but acknowledged it is for me to decide.
Crown submissions
[13] The Crown maintains its position taken at the sentencing indication. The Crown accepted that a discount for a guilty plea of 15 to 20 per cent is available to you. The Crown considers that any reduction for time spent on EM bail will be minimal. This is in reference to the two breaches while you were on EM bail for a period of five months, from 21 July 2023 to 29 December 2023. In the second incident, the Police found you with foil covering your electronic bracelet and it is submitted that this shows a clear intention to break EM bail.
[14] The Crown submits that imprisonment is the appropriate sentence for you. Its position is that any electronically monitored sentence, such as one of home detention, is not appropriate as you would struggle to comply with those restrictions and requirements. The Crown submission also relies on the opinion of the pre-sentence report writer who made statements to this effect. Further, the address you have suggested is considered to be unsuitable as this is where the offending took place. If an electronically monitored sentence is considered appropriate, the Crown suggests an address well away from the location of the offending would be more suitable.
Defence submissions
[15] Your counsel, Ms Cull, has identified a number of personal mitigating factors relevant to your offending. The first is youth, for which a discount of 10 to 15 per cent is sought. Ms Cull submits that youth can be relevant in determining an appropriate sentence with regards to three factors:1
(a)age-related neurological differences between young people and adults, specifically, impulsivity;
(b)the effect of imprisonment on young people; and
(c)the greater capacity of young people for rehabilitation.
[16] Ms Cull seeks a further 10 to 15 per cent discount for personal circumstances which were causative contributors to the offending, as identified in the cultural report.
[17] Discrete discounts are also sought for time spent on EM bail, remorse expressed in the cultural report and the steps you took when you were on EM bail. This refers to the rehabilitative programmes you completed, as verified through an email from your social worker.
1 Counsel has referred to the following authority: Dickey v R [2023] NZCA 2, [2023] 2 NZLR 405; Tangi v R [2023] NZHC 1997; Woodlock v New Zealand Police [2023] NZHC 2675. The Court’s discussion in Churchward v R [2011] NZCA 531, (2011) 25 CRNZ 446 at [77] is also helpful.
[18] Ms Cull submits that the application of these discounts, along with the 25 per cent discount for a guilty plea referenced in the sentencing indication, would bring the end sentence to one of two years’ imprisonment or less. Accordingly, Ms Cull has asked that leave be granted to apply for home detention if a more suitable address becomes available.
Sentence
[19] Mr Halliday-Walters, I sentence you today on the basis of the sentence indication from 6 December last year. I found a global starting point of four years and six months’ imprisonment appropriate for all charges.
[20] I found that the significant aggravating factors of the offence were the targeting of the victim’s head and the risk to others, particularly in the context of a large family gathering.
[21] In terms of the methamphetamine offending, I agreed with the Crown that a discrete uplift of six months was warranted, on account of the clear indication that you were involved in methamphetamine dealing.
[22] I stated at the sentence indication that a discount of 25 per cent would be appropriate for a guilty plea. I note your guilty plea entered on 6 December 2023 — the same day on which the sentence indication was given — and award the discount accordingly.
[23] I also recognised that further discounts may well be available in respect of further information provided to me at sentencing.
[24] I agree with Ms Cull’s submission that youth is a relevant factor in determining the appropriate sentence for your offending. The Court has readily recognised the significant age-related neurological differences between adult and youth offenders, including the latter’s lack of development of rational and logical thought.2 While this does not excuse your offending, it does explain your culpability and informs the
2 Taiapa v R [2020] NZHC 3355 at [71].
choices you have made.3 Further, the Court of Appeal in R v Slade accepted that the effect of imprisonment on youth differs from the effect on adults.4 Young people experience high levels of depression, anxiety, suicide ideation and self-injurious behaviour, as well as victimisation from other inmates, while in prison.5 The greater capacity of youth for rehabilitation is also engaged here.6 The Crown submissions have not referred me to any authority to challenge this. In these circumstances, I find that a discount of 15 per cent is appropriate for factors related to your youth.
[25] Ms Cull has also further submitted that a discount of 10 to 15 per cent is appropriate for the personal factors identified in the cultural report. I agree on the basis that there is a clear, causative link between your background and the offending.7 You referred to the incident of the offending as an “accumulation” of years of ongoing mental and physical abuse from the victim. You cited the victim’s actions after the death of your sister as your “breaking point”. As to the drug dealing, the cultural report made it apparent that you were raised in an environment which normalised the use of drugs and alcohol. Eventually, this became a way for you to cope with your abuse. Accordingly, I am prepared to grant a further discount of 10 per cent.
[26] Ms Cull has asked me to consider your remorse and prospects for rehabilitation also. I acknowledge the statements of remorse you have made to the cultural report writer. I also acknowledge the rehabilitative programmes you completed while you were on EM bail, as reported by your social worker. Your attendance at these programmes continued until you were remanded in custody prior to sentencing. I grant you a five per cent discount on this basis.
[27] I agree with the Crown’s submission that any credit to you which you are entitled for time spent on EM bail is minimal. The credit given for EM bail is for compliance with bail conditions, rather than the imposition of those conditions. You actively breached bail conditions, on two separate occasions. This is notable,
3 At [71].
4 R v Slade [2005] 2 NZLR 526 at [45].
5 R v Slade, above n 4, at [45].
6 R v Chankau [2007] NZCA 587 at [26]. The Court said that “with young offenders there is frequently the hope that with maturity will soon come insight and a reduction in risk to the community”.
7 Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143.
considering you spent a relatively short amount of time on bail, some five months. Accordingly, I am only prepared to recognise the time spent on EM bail with a reduction of one month.
[28] On that basis, I impose concurrent sentences of one year and 11 months’ imprisonment on all charges to which you have pleaded guilty.
[29] As the sentence is one within 24 months’ imprisonment, home detention is available to consider.8 I agree with the Crown’s concern that the Kawakawa address is unsuitable. I therefore grant leave to apply for home detention once a more suitable address is identified.
[30]You may stand down Mr Halliday-Walters.
Woolford J
ADDENDUM
[31] I also impose the release conditions recommended in the PAC Report dated 12 February 2024 for a period of six months.
8 Sentencing Act 2002, s 15A.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND OF THE REQUEST FOR A SENTENCING INDICATION IN ANY NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE IS
PROHIBITED BY SECTION 63 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 UNTIL THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN SENTENCED OR THE CHARGE DISMISSED. SEE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE
CRI-2023-027-526
[2023] NZHC 3549
THE KING v
HAUKINO HALLIDAY-WALTERS
Hearing: 6 December 2023 Appearances:
R Annandale for the Crown C Cull KC for the Defendant
Judgment:
6 December 2023
JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J
Solicitors: Marsden Woods Inskip Smith (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Whangarei Counsel: C Cull KC, Kaikohe
Introduction
[1]Haukino Halliday-Walters faces the following charges:
(a)Attempted murder;1
(b)Discharging a firearm with reckless disregard;2
(c)Unlawful possession of explosives;3
(d)Unlawful possession of firearm;4 and
(e)Possession of methamphetamine for supply.5
[2] Mr Halliday-Walters is expected to stand trial in 2024. On 8 September 2023, he sought a sentence indication for all charges.
Factual background
[3] Mr Halliday-Walters was 20 years old when the alleged offending occurred. The complainant is his father, aged 41 at the time. The charges all arose from an incident that occurred on 23 April 2023 in Kawakawa. The following summary is drawn from the agreed summary of facts drafted in preparation for this sentence indication.
[4] At approximately 4:30pm the complainant arrived at a relative's address in Kawakawa. Present at this address were several adults, teenagers, and young children. The defendant was residing at his grandmother's address directly across the road. Whilst the complainant was standing at the top of the driveway at [redacted] the defendant has obtained a firearm and barricaded himself in his bedroom. The defendant told the complainant "I'm going to kill you".
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 173. Maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 198(2). Maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
3 Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b). Maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment or fine of $5,000.
4 Section 45(1)(b). Maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment or fine of $5,000.
5 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f). Maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
[5] The defendant pointed the firearm through his bedroom window and aimed it at the complainant's head. The defendant pulled the trigger and discharged the firearm at the complainant. The defendant discharged the firearm at the complainant approximately 20 times in total. The defendant was swinging the gun side to side while he was shooting. The defendant continued to discharge the firearm whilst the pair yelled and swore at each other. As the defendant was discharging the firearm at the complainant, he saw small children running around in close vicinity to the address. This did not deter his attempts to shoot and kill the complainant.
[6] At some point the complainant went to the back step, which is approximately 44 metres away from the defendant's bedroom window. In aiming at the complainant, the defendant was also shooting the house. People inside the house, including children, had to drop to the floor while the shots were being fired. They could hear the bullets hitting the front of the house. The defendant eventually stopped discharging the firearm and jumped out of his bedroom window. The incident lasted between 30 minutes to an hour. Police were called and the defendant handed himself over to their custody. The complainant did not receive any injuries.
[7] Four bullet holes were located in the external house walls of the address. One of the bullets went through the external wall and into the laundry room. One bullet hole was found in a vehicle which was parked in front of the address. A .22 bolt action rifle was located in the bushes near the address. The rifle had the wooden stock cut down. The rifle had been discarded in the bushes by the complainant.
[8] After the defendant's arrest, Police conducted a search of the defendant's bedroom. Police located approximately 6.28grams of a white crystal-like substance in a range of small resealable bags and plastic containers. Police also located two sets of digital scales, 141 small point bags and 92 rubber bands. In the same bag was the defendant's birth certificate and a letter addressed to the defendant.
[9] During the Police search of the defendant's bedroom approximately 191 rounds of live ammunition of varying calibre were located. The majority of the ammunition was located in a first aid kit box on the table in the defendant's bedroom and in a black backpack with the defendant's Learner Driver Licence and his Restricted Driver
Licence. The defendant was also found to be in possession of high strength firearms viewing scopes.
[10] In explanation, the defendant said he was aiming the gun at the complainant's head “for an instant kill". The defendant stated he wanted to shut the complainant up and stop the complainant from controlling him. During the defendant's interview the police officer stated, “I mean in regards to today I'm happy no-one got hit like you know, twenty shots". The defendant replied, “He should have". The defendant also spoke in his interview about loading the firearm three times. The defendant has previously appeared before the Court.
[11] Reparation is sought to repay damages caused to the witness' vehicle and house. An order is sought for the destruction of the firearm, ammunition, and drug paraphernalia.
Submissions
Crown
[12] The Crown submit that the lead charge for the alleged offending is attempted murder. It submits that a starting point of five and a half years’ imprisonment is warranted for the lead charge and that the associated charges of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard, unlawful possession of explosives and unlawful possession of a firearm can be factored into the assessment of the starting point for attempted murder. The Crown further submits that a cumulative sentence of two years’ imprisonment is warranted for the charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.
[13] In accordance with the Court of Appeal decision in R v Taueki,6 the Crown identifies aggravating factors of:
(a)Premeditation. While it is acknowledged that the defendant did not plan the incident to occur on the day that it did, the Crown submits that there was moderate premeditation involved as the defendant was in possession of a .22 bolt action rifle, 191 rounds of live ammunition of
6 R v Taueki [2005] NZCA 174, [2005] 3 NZLR 372 at [31].
varying calibre and high strength firearm viewing scopes. The availability of these items allowed the defendant to react when the complainant arrived at the address across the road from where he was staying.
(b)Use of a weapon. The Crown says that the defendant discharged the firearm approximately 20 times, reloading three times. It submits that use of a lethal weapon is seriously aggravating to the alleged offending.
(c)Targeting the complainant’s head. The defendant told Police that he had been aiming for the complainant’s head.
(d)Vulnerability of the complainant and risk to others: The Crown submits that all those at the address were vulnerable in the context of the alleged offending. Those inside the address, including children, had to drop to the floor while the shots were being fired. One bullet entered the external wall and into the laundry room.
[14]The Crown does not identify any mitigating features of the offending.
[15] As to mitigating features personal to the defendant, the Crown submits that should Mr Halliday-Walters accept this indication, a discount for guilty pleas is available in the range of 15 to 20 per cent.
[16] The Crown have provided caselaw which it submits is more appropriate to the alleged offending than Taueki, which applies in cases of attempted murder where there is both an intent to cause serious injury and the infliction of such injury. Rather, the Crown submits that the following cases may assist in setting a starting point:
(a)R v De La Hunt:7 The defendant faced a charge, inter alia, of attempted murder. She had laced her partner’s food with sleeping tablets and attempted to set the house on fire, but it did not catch alight. There was
7 R v De La Hunt CA 416/01, 8 May 2002.
no injury to the victim. A starting point of five years’ imprisonment was adopted for the lead charge of attempted murder.
(b)R v Hakeke:8 The defendants were convicted of discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. They were associated with a gang and drove around looking for members of a rival gang to instigate a confrontation. They came across a rival gang member standing on the sidewalk and came to a stop 50 to 70 metres away. One of the defendants leaned out of the car window and fired two shots from a sawn-off shotgun in the victim’s direction. No one was injured. Starting points of four years and six months’ imprisonment were adopted at sentencing.
(c)Katene v R:9 The defendants, a father and son, drove in separate vehicles to the victim’s address to confront him as part of an ongoing dispute, armed with firearms. The father approached the front of the property and shot in the general direction of the house and then at the victim, who stood in the driveway. The father then drove around to the back of the property and continued to fire in the direction of two other occupants. No one was injured. A starting point of five years’ imprisonment was adopted with respect to the father, upheld on appeal. The Court found that there was a degree of planning to the attack, in assembling the vehicles, firearms and ammunition and arranging for the neighbours to be absent during the incident.
(d)R v Reihana:10 The defendants were sentenced on charges of discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm as well as associated charges of unlawful possession of firearms and explosives. The defendants and the victim were members of rival gangs that had been engaging in retaliatory violence. The defendants discovered that the victim was staying at a hotel in Auckland and
8 R v Hakeke [2013] NZHC 865.
9 Katene v R [2010] NZCA 394.
10 R v Reihana [2023] NZHC 580.
organised rooms for themselves. When the victim was checking out, the defendants confronted him in the lobby and fired a pistol at him twice. The victim was not injured, and two bullets were later recovered from the wall behind where the victim and a hotel staff member had been seated. At sentencing, the Court considered the offending was aggravated by the fact that the attack was premeditated, it occurred in the context of organised crime, there were multiple attackers, and there was danger to others. A starting point of five years and six months’ imprisonment was adopted.
[17] The Crown submits that the instant offending is more serious than that in De La Hunt, Hakeke and Katene and is most similar to that in Reihana, particularly referencing the risk to others present when the shooting occurred.
[18] The Crown places the methamphetamine offending between bands one and two of the guideline judgment Zhang v R,11 with reference to the quantity of methamphetamine involved (6.28 grams) and Mr Halliday-Walter’s role as a dealer which it submits is at the lower end of the scale.
Defence
[19] Ms Cull KC, for Mr Halliday-Walters, submits that a starting point of four years’ imprisonment should be adopted for all charges. Ms Cull submits that the attempted murder charge be taken as the lead offending and that the remaining charges, including the methamphetamine charge, should be taken together as one incident warranting concurrent sentences. Counsel submits that the defendant was using methamphetamine at the time of the offending and is in part a causal factor which does not warrant an uplift to the starting point of four years’ imprisonment.
[20] With respect to the lead offending, counsel submits, in addition to those provided by the Crown, the cases of R v Lee and R v Byles,12 both of which involved charges of discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
11 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648 at [125]–[126].
12 R v Lee [2018] NZHC 3446; R v Byles [2022] NZHC 2897.
[21] As to a discount for guilty pleas, Ms Cull submits that a full discount of 25 per cent is available. She says that the Crown added the attempted murder charge on 20 June 2023, which required the proceeding to move to the High Court and for Mr Halliday-Walters to engage new counsel. The Crown filed an amended statement of facts and charge notice on 6 September 2023, following which the defendant requested a sentence indication on 8 September 2023.
[22] Counsel also indicate that reports will be requested prior to sentencing but that discounts will be sought reflecting Mr Halliday-Walters’ youth, genuine remorse, cultural factors and background, time spent on electronically monitored bail and rehabilitative steps taken while on bail.
Legal principles
[23] In providing this sentence indication I have taken into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in the Sentencing Act 2002.
[24] I consider the most relevant of the s 7 purposes are to hold Mr Halliday-Walters accountable for his actions, to denounce his conduct and promote in him a sense of responsibility. Under the s 8 principles, I must take into account the gravity of the offending, its seriousness, the desirability of consistency with appropriate sentencing levels, and the requirement to impose the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances.
Analysis
Starting point
[25] I agree with counsel that the lead offending is attempted murder. As both the Crown and Ms Cull have indicated, Taueki does not readily apply in the instant case as no injury was inflicted to the complainant or anyone else despite there being, as stated by the defendant, an intention to kill.
[26] One of the cases referred to me was that of R v Lee, in which the lead offending was discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Duffy J considered the sentencing bands in Taueki were not applicable as no injury had been
caused and nor were the aggravating factors as outlined in that case. Rather, the Court identified generally aggravating features of the offending, including that it involved a home invasion.
[27] I agree that Taueki is not entirely applicable in this case but agree that the offending is generally aggravated by the targeting of the complainant’s head and the risk to others, the latter of which is seriously aggravating in the context of a large family gathering at which children were present. It is further relevant to the risk to others that the incident occurred over a sustained period of time, 20 to 30 minutes, and the defendant reloaded the firearm several times.
[28] I do not consider that there was premeditation to the attack. Mr Halliday- Walters fired at the complainant from his bedroom window, in which he presumably kept his possessions, including the firearm and ammunition. The unlawful possession of those items is captured by discrete charges and to my mind should not be double counted as an aggravating feature of the lead offending.
[29] Having reference to the caselaw, I do not consider that any of the cases referred to me are entirely on all fours with the offending here. There is no suggestion that Mr Halliday-Walters offended as part of gang or criminal activity as in Hakeke, Reihana and Byles. Nor were there multiple attackers or evidence of planning as in Katene and De La Hunt. The offending in this case appears to have been relatively spontaneous. There is a victim impact statement in which the complainant denies the involvement of a firearm and says that there was a verbal altercation between himself and his son, who appeared to be under the influence of drugs. Ms Cull submits that Mr Halliday-Walters was using methamphetamine at the time and that he was grieving, having recently lost his sister. It appears that the dispute may have been related to her death.
[30] On the other hand, as I have noted, the shooting was prolonged and involved significant risk to others, including children. Mr Halliday-Walters appears to have understood that risk and continued firing at the complainant and the address unimpeded.
[31] All of the cases provided adopted starting points in the range of four to five years’ imprisonment. Taken in the round, I consider that a starting point of four years’ imprisonment is appropriate for the lead offending and the associated charges of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard, unlawful possession of explosives and unlawful possession of a firearm, which are closely connected to the lead offending.
[32] In terms of the methamphetamine offending, I agree with the Crown that a discrete uplift is warranted. While I acknowledge Ms Cull’s submission that methamphetamine use was involved in the commission of the lead offence, that cannot be extended to the supply aspect of the charge which is temporally distinct from the firearm offending and different in kind.13 The defendant was found in possession of scales, ziplock bags, and separated quantities of methamphetamine which strongly indicates he was involved in methamphetamine dealing. I do note Ms Cull’s submission that he was offending just to feed his own addiction. However, looking at the guidance in Zhang, the quantity falls just into band two (which covers between five and 250 grams). There is no indication that his role was anything more significant than that of a street dealer, which is consistent with the quantity involved and the defendant’s youth.
[33] A starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate if the offending was sentenced in isolation. Having regard to the totality principle, however, I consider that a cumulative sentence of six months’ imprisonment is applicable with respect to the charge of possession for supply of methamphetamine.
[34] In the result, I arrive at an indicated starting point of four years’ imprisonment for the attempted murder charge and related firearm offending.
[35] For the methamphetamine offending, I have reached an indicated starting point of six months’ imprisonment to be served on a cumulative basis.
13 Sentencing Act 2002, s 84.
Personal circumstances
[36] As to a guilty plea discount, I am of the view that a 25 per cent discount is appropriate. The offence occurred on 23 April 2023. The defendant was initially charged with discharging a firearm with intent to do grievous bodily harm. This was upgraded to a charge of attempted murder on 20 June 2023, which necessitated a transfer to the High Court. The Crown filed a charge notice and amended summary of facts on 6 September 2023. The application for a sentence indication was filed on 8 September 2023. That, in my mind, can be classified as the earliest opportunity. The trial was originally scheduled for 4 August 2025 but has now been brought forward to 4 March 2024.
[37] There may well be further discounts available in respect of information disclosed in reports prepared for sentencing, including a discount for time spent on electronically monitored bail, remorse, possible restorative justice conference and so on.
Conclusion
[38] The starting points I arrive at is four years’ imprisonment and six months’ imprisonment, to be served cumulatively.
[39] This sentence is only an indication. The sentence indicated today will be the maximum sentence to be imposed, should you enter guilty pleas, and I am the presiding judge. It may be that further information prior to sentencing will allow for a lower end sentence than is indicated here.
[40] This sentence indication is open for acceptance for five working days and will expire at 5:00 pm on Wednesday, 13 December 2023, unless earlier accepted.
Woolford J
12
0