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…

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 Llewell

Details

AGLC: R v Llewell [2016] NZHC 1873
Case: [2016] NZHC 1873
Decision Date: 12 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Llewell, the defendant, Joanna Stephanie Llewell, was sentenced for multiple drug-related charges, including supplying and possessing methamphetamine for the purpose of supply, as well as possessing a restricted weapon, a taser. The sentencing took place in the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence considering the nature and extent of Llewell's involvement in drug dealing, her personal circumstances, and the mitigating factors presented.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the severity of Llewell's criminal activities, which included being part of an organised drug dealing group and independently supplying methamphetamine. The court also had to weigh personal factors such as Llewell's troubled past, her abusive relationship with the alleged prime mover of the offending, her addiction issues, and her expressed desire for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court considered the principle of proportionality and the need to balance public safety with Llewell's potential for rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted that Llewell's involvement in drug dealing was extensive, with evidence of numerous transactions and possession of significant quantities of methamphetamine. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences and the need for a substantial custodial sentence. However, it also recognised Llewell's personal circumstances, including her abusive relationship and her desire to rehabilitate. The court allowed for a discount of 12% for personal factors and 20% for her guilty pleas, resulting in a total sentence of five years and six months imprisonment for the drug-related charges, to be served concurrently, and an additional one year for the possession of the taser, also to be served concurrently.

The court further ordered that all drug paraphernalia found in Llewell's possession be seized and destroyed. The judgment reflects a balanced approach, considering both the gravity of the offences and the personal mitigating factors presented.

Orders