Kaleb Whyte, Crown Solicitor, Hamilton Mark Sturm, Barrister, Hamilton
R v KEYTE [2022] NZHC 1063 [13 May 2022]
Introduction
[1] Ms Keyte, you appear before the Court for sentencing on the following charges:1
(a)Supplying Class A drug (methamphetamine);2
(b)Offering to supply Class A drug (methamphetamine);3
(c)Supplying Class A drug (gamma-butyrolactone aka GBL);4 and
(d)Participation in an organised criminal group.5
[2]The maximum penalty for supply of methamphetamine is life imprisonment.
[3] The facts of your offending are set out in my sentence indication.6 I will not repeat them here. My sentence indication will be attached to these remarks and form part of them. In brief, you acted as a street level dealer and supplied just over 10 grams of methamphetamine on 14 separate occasions; you offered to supply methamphetamine on seven separate occasions; you supplied GBL on two separate occasions; and you attempted to assist a co-defendant retrieve a parcel containing
2.04 kilograms of methamphetamine.
[4]At a sentence indication hearing on 24 March 2022 my indication was:
(a)A term of imprisonment of two years and two months, on the lead charges of drug supply.
(b)An uplift of six months for the charge of participating in an organised criminal group.
1 The defendant was charged with two charges of supplying methamphetamine. The two charges have been amalgamated for sentencing purposes.
2 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2): maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2): maximum penalty life imprisonment.
4 Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(c) and (2): maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
(c)An uplift of two months (just over 6 per cent) to reflect your previous criminal convictions.
(d)A discount of 20 per cent for pleading guilty at an early stage.
[5] This resulted in an adjusted starting point of two years and three months' imprisonment.
[6] At the hearing, I noted that any mitigating factors personal to you would be considered at sentencing: these include commitment to rehabilitation, family support, rehabilitative prospects and time spent on restrictive bail.
[7] I left open the question of whether the sentence of imprisonment could be commuted to one of home detention or a community-based sentence.
[8]On 1 April 2022 you accepted the indication and pleaded guilty to all charges.
Approach to Sentencing
[9] Ms Keyte, in sentencing you today, I am required to take into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as contained in the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act).7 In particular, I must impose a sentence which: holds…
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 Keyte
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Keyte [2022] NZHC 1063
Case
[2022] NZHC 1063
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Camille Doreen Keyte was sentenced for multiple drug-related charges, including supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine and gamma-butyrolactone, as well as participating in an organised criminal group. The maximum penalty for the drug supply charges was life imprisonment. Keyte had been under restrictive bail conditions since December 2020, and had pleaded guilty to all charges on 1 April 2022. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence considering the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002, including accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court also needed to weigh mitigating factors such as Keyte's addiction, rehabilitative efforts, and family support.
The court accepted that Keyte's methamphetamine addiction was causative of her offending, and allowed a 25% discount to reflect this. Additionally, the court acknowledged Keyte's rehabilitative efforts and prospects for rehabilitation, granting a 15% discount. A 3% discount was also given for the time Keyte had already spent under restrictive bail conditions. Considering these discounts, the court calculated that an imprisonment sentence would result in a term of just under 14 months. However, the court decided to impose a sentence other than imprisonment in order to support Keyte's rehabilitation and parenting role. The court sentenced Keyte to six months of Community Detention, followed by two years of Intensive Supervision. This sentence was subject to specific conditions, including participation in alcohol and drug programs, and restrictions on contact with co-offenders and substance use.
In conclusion, the court sentenced Camille Doreen Keyte to six months of Community Detention, followed by two years of Intensive Supervision. The sentence was designed to hold Keyte accountable for her wrongdoing, while also supporting her rehabilitation and enabling her to continue parenting her daughters and attending rehabilitation programs. The court also discharged Keyte on one of the drug supply charges, as the Crown offered no evidence against her on that charge.