R v Llewell

[2016] NZHC 1873

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2015-019-6211 [2016] NZHC 1873

THE QUEEN

v

JOANNA STEPHANIE LLEWELL

Hearing:	12 August 2016
Counsel:	J N Foster for Crown T Sutcliffe for Defendant
Judgment:	12 August 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Counsel:

T Sutcliffe, Hamilton

R v LLEWELL [2016] NZHC 1873 [12 August 2016]

[1]      Joanna Stephanie Llewell, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to four charges of supplying the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine, one of possessing that drug for the purpose of supply, one of offering it for the purpose of supply and one of possessing a restricted weapon, namely a taser.

[2]      On 13 April 2016, I gave a sentence indication to you.1    You declined that indication.   However guilty pleas were entered on 22 July 2016 and convictions entered on the charges to which you pleaded guilty.

[3]      I  start  by  providing  some  brief  information  about  the  nature  of  your offending.  Your culpability in the drug dealing operation falls into two categories:

[a]      First, you were a member of an organised criminal group involved in dealing that was organised by [Mr X].

[b]      Second, you had your own independent supply of methamphetamine in the sense that you had sources so that you could make the drug available to others.

[1]      Intercepted  communications  during  the  covert  segment  of  the  Police operation revealed 120 occasions on which transactions involving the actual supply of methamphetamine were detected.   On 102  of those, the Police were able to identify the total amount supplied as 55.45 grams.  In addition, analysis of telephone intercepts resulted in evidence of offers to supply on a further 82 occasions.  The amounts in issue were 141.2 grams.

[4]      When the operation was terminated you were found in possession of five point bags containing various quantities of methamphetamine, which totalled 2.68 grams, a number of empty snap-lock bags, a cut straw and 15 mobile telephones.  In addition, the taser was found.

[5]      The number of mobile telephones and the taser indicate that the level of your offending was high.   It is particularly concerning that a taser was located; as a weapon was obviously there to protect the supply that you had.

[6]      I was satisfied at the sentence indication that your offending fell within the upper band of the Court of Appeal guideline decision in R v Fatu,2 namely the upper end of Band 2.  I took a starting point of seven years nine months imprisonment and added three months to take account of the location of the taser in your possession.

[7]      The  personal  factors  of  which  I  have  read  indicate  that  you  have  been somewhat troubled over the years.  You are now, as I understand it, 27 years old. You have four children, all of whom are with your parents in Northland.  You have been in abusive relationships; one in particular with the alleged prime mover of the offending in this case.  You have been an addict and that has fuelled your need to deal with methamphetamine.

[8]      The extent to which your personal will may have been overcome by [Mr X’s] actions must be balanced against the fact that you had personal possession of a taser and were able to assert yourself as an independent dealer.  While I take account of the abuse relationship, I do no more than that.

[9]      The pre-sentence report indicates that you have “impressive insight” into the offending and the effects on others.  You have indicated a desire to rehabilitate and if treated successfully you are assessed at low risk of reoffending.  The insight that you have gained and your desire to rehabilitate is evident from the letter which you wrote to me, which I have read carefully.  I also acknowledge the letter received from your mother which explains a number of other factors.  You are lucky, after all you have done, to continue to have family support and when you are released from prison you need to lean on that significantly to bring your life to a point where you can go ahead and help your children as well as yourself.

[10]     There is a limited extent to which I can take account of personal factors relating to offending when such serious offending is in issue3.   I propose to take account of those to the extent of allowing for additional remorse over and above that contained in the plea of guilty, personal circumstancing including the nature of the relationship and your desire to rehabilitate and your time on electronic bail.   I am rounding those to something in the order of 12 percent.

[11]     I propose to allow a credit of 20 percent for the guilty pleas.  That is at the upper end of what you are entitled to.  We are now only a couple of months away from trial.  The trial is due to begin on 24 October this year.  The Crown has already spent a good deal of time preparing.  Nevertheless, I think in your situation a credit of 20 percent is justified given the expressions that you have put before me.

[12]     In those circumstances, I have calculated an end sentence of five years six months imprisonment.  The sentence that will be imposed is as follows:

[a]      On the four charges of supplying methamphetamine, the one charge of  possessing  methamphetamine  for  supply,  the  one  charge  of offering methamphetamine, the sentence will be one of five years six months’ imprisonment. They are to be served concurrently.

[b]      On the charge of possession of a restricted weapon, you are sentenced to one year’s imprisonment.  That too will be served concurrently.

[13]     Ms Foster seeks an order that all drug paraphernalia be seized be destroyed.  I

make an order accordingly.

[14]     Stand down.

P R Heath J