R v Langi
[2013] NZHC 1421
•18 June 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CRI-2012-092-5862 [2013] NZHC 1421
THE QUEEN
v
STANLEY LANGI
Hearing: 18 June 2013
Appearances: D M Robinson for Crown
L B Cordwell for Prisoner
Sentenced: 18 June 2013
SENTENCING REMARKS OF PETERS J
Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Counsel: L B Cordwell, Auckland
R v LANGI [2013] NZHC 1421 [18 June 2013]
Introduction
[1] Mr Langi, you appear for sentence having been convicted of one charge of supplying a Class A drug, namely methamphetamine.[1] The charge of supply of methamphetamine carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. You were convicted on 18 April 2013 following jury trial at which I was the presiding Judge.
Facts
[1] Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c).
[2] It is common ground between counsel that on 15 July 2011 you supplied up to half a gram of methamphetamine to an associate of yours, Mr Van Lee.
Personal circumstances
[3] In preparing for sentencing today, I have considered the very good submissions made by Crown counsel and your own counsel, the pre-sentence report dated 23 May 2013 and your prior criminal history.
[4] I have also taken into account the letters that your counsel has made available today, having only recently received them himself. These are a letter dated 13 June
2013 from a panel beating firm for whom you have worked recently, a lengthy and well written letter from your partner and a letter from the Waitemata District Health Board regarding alcohol and drug counselling. This is a brief letter and I do not find it particularly informative.
[5] You are a 31 year old father of four. You came to New Zealand from Tonga in 1996. You live in Mangere with your partner, your partner’s mother and children. You have worked in the construction industry in the past, also in a barber shop and now, on the face of it, briefly for a panel beating firm. You are in good health although acknowledge that you are or have been addicted to methamphetamine and cannabis.
[6] You have 31 criminal convictions dating back to 2000. You have two previous drug related convictions. In 2008 you were convicted of permitting your
premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine for which you were sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment. In 2009 you were convicted of possession of methamphetamine and sentenced to 190 hours’ community work. Your list of convictions includes four convictions for failing to answer bail, four for breaching orders of community work and one conviction for breaching prison release conditions. In fact, the pre-sentence report states that there is an outstanding warrant for your arrest for breach of community work, that warrant having been issued on
21 June 2012. In addition, there are a number of convictions for violence related offending and for dishonesty related offending.
[7] The author of your pre-sentence report considers that you present a high risk of reoffending and a medium to high risk of harm to others. The author of the report suggests that the criminality of your drug-related offending has escalated, as has your continued disregard for completing sentences that you have received. That disregard is reflected by what the author describes as an “abysmal” record of complying with previous sentences.
[8] The author recommends a sentence of imprisonment and suggests that you would benefit from programmes to address your drug-dependence, but the success of those would of course be subject to your motivation to comply.
Approach to sentencing
[9] In sentencing you today Mr Langi, I must do two things.
[10] First, I must identify what we refer to as the “starting point” for your offending. This is to reflect the culpability inherent in your offending. Secondly, I am required to consider whether there are any reasons why I should increase or reduce the sentence on account of matters that are personal to you.
Starting point
[11] Coming to the starting point, I need first to remind myself why I am sentencing you and the principles I must apply.
[12] There is no dispute that I am to impose a sentence that holds you accountable for the harm that your offending has caused; that makes you understand that you are responsible for that harm; that denounces your offending; that deters you and others from behaving in the same way in the future; and that protects the community from you. You should not be under any doubt, Mr Langi, that dealing in drugs causes harm to the community. Methamphetamine is a harmful drug and the consequences for those who take it and for society are far reaching.
[13] I must also bear in mind certain principles. From the text messages that you and Mr Van Lee exchanged, I am satisfied this offending was not impulsive or done on the spur of the moment. You and Mr Lee had been in communication regarding the particular deal during the course of the day. I will also sentence you on the same basis as others who have committed similar offences have been sentenced. Your counsel drew my attention to the provision in the Sentencing Act 2002 which requires me to impose the least restrictive sentence that I can in the circumstances. That obligation is subject to s 6(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 which in summary presupposes a period of imprisonment for offending of this kind.
[14] The Court of Appeal provided guidance for sentencing Judges for this kind of offending in a case called R v Fatu.[2] In that case the Court of Appeal identified several bands for sentencing purposes mainly by reference to the quantity of the drug supplied. The quantity of methamphetamine that you supplied, up to half a gram, places you within “band one” which is for offending involving supply of up to five grams of methamphetamine. The case anticipates a starting point of between two
[2] R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72.
and four years’ imprisonment.
[15] Your counsel suggests a starting point in the range of one to two years’ imprisonment. He emphasises that your offending was motivated by your drug addiction and that there is lack of evidence to suggest that you received any monetary gain from supplying the methamphetamine. I have reservations as to that latter submission because I find it difficult to accept that there was no consideration or reward to you from supplying Mr Van Lee, whether that reward was given to you
on this particular occasion or some earlier or later occasion. Crown counsel submits
a starting point of between two and two and a half years’ imprisonment. The other point I mention, Mr Langi, is I do not consider you to be a facilitator of this deal – you were the supplier, not some form of intermediary.
[16] I am guided by three cases that are somewhat comparable to your own. In R v Parker,[3] the offender pleaded guilty to one charge of supplying a quarter of a gram of methamphetamine. Simon France J described the offender’s role in the supply as that of a facilitator who introduced the purchaser to another man when the exchange took place. The Judge adopted a starting point of two years’ imprisonment.
[3] R v Parker HC Whangarei CRI 2005-029-380, 7 July 2006.
[17] In another case, R v Veza,[4] the offender was convicted after jury trial on one count of supplying one gram of methamphetamine. He had a history of minor cannabis offending. Randerson J adopted a two year starting point.
[4] R v Veza HC Whangarei CRI-2005-029-1262, 21 June 2007.
[18] In R v Hoeta,[5] the offender pleaded guilty to two charges of selling methamphetamine, totalling one and a quarter grams, and two charges of offering to supply methamphetamine, totalling three and a half grams. On the supply charges Lang J adopted a starting point of two years and six months’ imprisonment.
[5] R v Hoeta HC Auckland CRI-2006-057-1237, 21 November 2006.
[19] Taking into account the quantity of methamphetamine that you supplied and your level of culpability, and having regard to these cases involving similar quantities of methamphetamine, I take a starting point of two years’ imprisonment.
Adjusting the starting point
[20] I then turn to the second part of the exercise, Mr Langi, which is to consider whether I need to increase or reduce the sentence on account of other matters.
[21] Your counsel acknowledges that there is no real matter that can be mentioned in mitigation other than of course the hardship that a sentence of imprisonment
would impose on your immediate family, namely your partner and children, one of
whom has been born, as I understand it, in the last six weeks or so. Your partner’s letter to the Court tells me that you provide valuable use to her and are a loving father. I take that matter into account.
[22] Aside from that, there are no other mitigating factors which can be mentioned on your behalf. Your previous convictions, in my view, for methamphetamine related offending justify an increase to the two year starting point. That is not to punish you twice for the same offending, but because you plainly have not learnt a lesson from prior instances. Taking into account the matters set out in your partner’s letter and these prior convictions, I propose to increase your sentence by three months. I do not propose to make any further uplift on account of your other offending because it is not particularly relevant to the matters before the Court.
[23] Mr Langi, that leads me to an end sentence of two years, three months’ imprisonment. Given that, the issue of home detention does not arise. I record, however, that had I arrived at a lesser end sentence I would not have considered this an appropriate case in which to impose a sentence of home detention. As I have said, s 6(4) presumes a period of imprisonment and there is also your failure to comply with conditions of bail and sentences previously imposed. Those suggest to me that you would not comply with the conditions that go with a sentence of home detention.
Sentence
[24] Mr Langi, please stand. On the charge of supplying the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine, I sentence you to two years and three months’ imprisonment.
[25] Please stand down.
..................................................................
M Peters J
0
0
0