R v Hurring HC Christchurch CRI 2005-009-001376

[2007] NZHC 1858

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2005-009-001376

REGINA

v

ANGIE LEE HURRING

Hearing:         18 June 2007

Appearances: D J Orchard and C E Butchard for Crown

P J Doody for Prisoner

Judgment:      18 June 2007

SENTENCING REMARKS OF FOGARTY J

[1]      Ms Hurring, you have been found by a jury to be guilty of the crime of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine.  That means that the jury were satisfied that the Crown had proved that you were buying methamphetamine from Deborah Gordon-Smith not only for your own use, as you have a serious P habit, but also to supply others and that Deborah Gordon-Smith knew that.

[2]      You have just heard your counsel to say that in the whole of this busted drug operation of those who have pleaded guilty and have been convicted you are the least culpable.   Certainly I think there is a good deal of force in that.   It  is still an extremely serious matter, the selling of P.   The Crown said you sold because as a beneficiary you could not afford a P habit unless you were also  supplying  it to

others.

R V HURRING HC CHCH CRI 2005-009-001376  18 June 2007

[3]      I have read the material that  you and  your family have supplied and, of course, I listened to the evidence in the case.  I am satisfied that during this period of time you did have a serious drug habit and that you were in the business of being a dealer because of that habit, not because you were, in the wider scheme of things, a commercial drug dealer.   In that respect you differ from Mr Jarden.

[4]      Mrs Orchard rightly points out that one of the reasons why Mr Jarden fits more into the context of a drug dealer is that he was dealing with another drug, cannabis.  But I am left convinced that in justice you should not receive the same sentence as Mr Jarden and that there is doubt as to how much you did on-sell.  I am left with the view that on the evidence it was proven that you did sell more than once.  However, the scale of your purchases and your on-selling has not been proven to be large and I am not satisfied that I should sentence you on the basis that they were significant transactions involving more than on-sale of some points.  For these reasons, in my view, the level of culpability of the offending, before we get to your personal circumstances, justifies a starting point of two years.

[5]      The Crown has not really argued that there are any significant aggravating features other than pointing  to  a  conviction  you  had  in  2002  for  possession  of cannabis.  The Crown submits that there are no mitigating factors of relevance.  The fact that you were a drug user was not a mitigating factor although it does go to explaining where the P went to and why the crime was committed and leads to the confidence in the Court that most of the P that you bought was for yourself, not for on-supply.

[6]      So in the end I do not disturb my view as to the starting point and you are sentenced to two years imprisonment.  This is a case where I think you are entitled to leave to apply for home detention.  You are the mother of two young children.  You do  not  have a  significant  previous criminal  history.    You  have already  spent  a significant time since the trial in prison.  You are granted leave to apply for home detention.  The standard release conditions apply.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch, for Crown

P J Doody, Christchurch, for Prisoner