R v Kingi

[2017] NZHC 719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2015-088-3515 [2017] NZHC 719

THE QUEEN

v

TE WHAREUMU KINGI

Hearing:	12 April 2017
Appearances:	N J Dore for Crown A Fairley for Defendant
Judgment:	12 April 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v KINGI [2017] NZHC 719 [12 April 2017]

[1]     Mr Kingi has pleaded guilty to charges of being in possession of a methamphetamine pipe and being in possession of methamphetamine for supply. The charge relating to the pipe carries a maximum sentence of one year’s imprisonment, whilst the charge of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

[2]      Mr Kingi also faces a further charge of supplying methamphetamine.   The Crown has offered no evidence on that charge, and I now discharge Mr Kingi on that charge pursuant to s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

The facts

[3]      The circumstances of the offending are set out in a summary of facts with which Mr Kingi takes no issue.  The charges were laid following an incident that occurred in the early hours of Thursday 17 December 2015.  On that date, Mr Kingi was driving his motor vehicle in Whangarei when he came across a police cordon relating to an operation the police were carrying out.  Mr Kingi made a u-turn in an endeavour to drive away, but the police stopped him.  When they asked him whether he had anything illegal in the car, he told them he had a methamphetamine pipe. The police then searched the vehicle and found a red Velcro wallet.   Inside the wallet,  the police  found  a small  quantity of cash  together  with  two  point  bags containing a total of .97 of a gram of methamphetamine.

[4]      The   police   also   searched   a   black   toiletry   bag   and   found   a   glass methamphetamine pipe  in  it,  together with  more than $10,000  in  New Zealand currency.   In the bottom of the bag, the police found $2,850 in mixed notes, and wrapped in electrical tape.

Starting point

[5]      The offending clearly falls within band 1 of methamphetamine identified in R v Fatu.1   This relates to quantities of methamphetamine of up to five grams. At the lower end of this band, penalties of around two years imprisonment are commonly

imposed. The Court may go below that level, but only in cases where there is clearly

1      R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA).

no commerciality.  The existence of the cash in the present case precludes that.   I

therefore adopt a starting point of two years imprisonment.

Aggravating factors

[6]      Mr Kingi has a number of previous convictions.  Mostly, however, these are for driving offences and also offences involving disorder.  They are of a completely different type than the current charges, and therefore I apply no uplift in respect of them.

Mitigating factors

[7]      The remaining issue is the extent to which I should reduce the sentence to reflect mitigating factors personal to Mr Kingi.   The most obvious of these is his guilty pleas.

[8]      Another  Judge  has  already indicated  that  defendants  from  this  particular police operation who plead guilty in the near future are entitled to a discount of

25 per  cent.    Applying  that  discount,  I  reach  an  end  sentence  of  18  months imprisonment.

[9]      Mr Kingi has handed up a number of references and letters from members of his family.  It is clear that he enjoys considerable support.  In cases of commercial drug offending, however, issues of a personal nature are given much lesser weight than they are in other areas of the law.  The obvious hurdle that Mr Kingi faces is to sever his involvement with methamphetamine.  His family need to ensure that they play their part in ensuring that he remains drug free, because from now on he will be treated as a recidivist offender if he is arrested again on drugs charges.

[10]     I therefore impose an end sentence of 18 months imprisonment.  Mr Kingi has  already  spent  11  months  in  custody on  remand,  so  he  will  be  eligible  for immediate release.  There is no point in considering a sentence of home detention. Mr Kingi has previous convictions for beaching sentences of home detention so that would not have been an option in any event.

Sentence

[11]     On the charge of being in  possession of methamphetamine, Mr Kingi  is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.  On the charge of being in possession of a pipe, he is convicted and discharged.

Forfeiture

[12]     I make an order by consent that, of the cash found in the vehicle, the sum of

$2,800 is to be returned to Mr Kingi. The balance is forfeited to the Crown.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Whangarei