IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2017-092-011344
[2018] NZHC 3165
THE QUEEN v
VICTORIA LOUIS JULIAN
Hearing: 4 December 2018 Appearances:
Kristy Li for the Crown
Shane Tait and Jonathan Hudson for the Defendant
Judgment:
4 December 2018
SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J
R v JULIAN [2018] NZHC 3165 [4 December 2018]
Introduction
[1] Ms Julian you may remain seated until I formally impose sentence upon you. At that point I will ask you to stand.
[2] Ms Julian, at the age of 48, you appear for sentence before me for offending relating to the manufacture of methamphetamine at your home.
[3] The charges to which you have pleaded guilty are serious. They are that over a one month period in 2017 you first permitted your property to be used to make methamphetamine and secondly you supplied methamphetamine.1 Both charges are laid on a representative basis which reflects the Crown’s case that there were repeated episodes of offending of a similar sort throughout the month.
[4] You also face another charge of supplying methamphetamine. To that you have pleaded not guilty. That matter is going to trial. I only mention it for completeness so that you know I am sentencing you only in relation to the two charges you have pleaded guilty to and nothing else.
[5] In sentencing you this morning I shall follow the well-trodden and well- understood formula used in Courts of New Zealand when Judges sentence. There are four steps:
(a)First, I need to deal with the facts of your offending. These will be well-known to you but I need to recite them not only because sentencing is quintessentially a public function which must be undertaken in open Court but also because the facts are relevant to my assessment of the seriousness of your offending.
(b)Secondly, I must identify a starting point. By starting point I mean the level of sentence which reflects your offending without reference to your personal circumstances. That starting point can either go up or go
1 Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(a). The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
down depending on what aggravating and mitigating factors I regard as relevant.
(c)Thirdly, I shall consider your personal circumstances. The Crown fairly acknowledges that there are no aggravating personal circumstances in play here but your counsel, Mr Tait and Mr Hudson, pressed me to consider a couple of personal mitigating factors. And so I shall consider those.
(d)Finally, I need to apply a discount for your guilty pleas and then stand back and look at what is referred to as the totality principle; in other words whether the sentence I have arrived at under that formula properly reflects your culpability or blameworthiness.
[6] From the outset I need to record that in sentencing you I am guided by the principles and purposes of the Sentencing Act 2002. The particular purposes and principles relevant to your case are the need to hold you responsible…
Continue reading R v Julian
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Julian [2018] NZHC 3165
- Case
- [2018] NZHC 3165
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Moore J began by detailing the facts of the case, noting that Julian had allowed her property to be used for methamphetamine production on three occasions and had supplied the drug to associates. The court established a starting point of two years and six months’ imprisonment, considering the commercial scale of the operation and the amount of methamphetamine produced. The court then factored in a three-month uplift for Julian's supply of methamphetamine, resulting in an overall starting point of two years and nine months’ imprisonment.
The court considered several mitigating factors, including Julian's remorse and the time she had spent on EM-bail. While the court did not find sufficient evidence of genuine remorse, it did grant a discount for the restrictive bail conditions, reducing the sentence by three and a half months. Additionally, the court applied a 25 per cent discount for Julian's early guilty plea. After these adjustments, the court determined a final sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment.
Ultimately, Moore J opted for a sentence of 10 months’ home detention, considering Julian's low risk of re-offending, her willingness to be held accountable, and the strong support system she had in place. The court concluded that home detention was the less restrictive and appropriate sentence in this case, as it would better facilitate Julian's reintegration and rehabilitation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.