R v Martin
[2017] NZHC 1196
•2 June 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY
CRI-2015-088-3515 [2017] NZHC 1196
THE QUEEN
v
REGIMEN MARTIN
Hearing: 2 June 2017 Appearances:
N J Dore for Crown
W McKean for DefendantJudgment:
2 June 2017
SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J
R v MARTIN [2017] NZHC 1196 [2 June 2017]
[1] Mr Martin, you have pleaded guilty to 36 charges relating to the supply of methamphetamine and the sale of cannabis.1 You have also pleaded guilty to charges that relate to the manufacture of methamphetamine.
[2] The methamphetamine-related charges carry a sentence of life imprisonment. The maximum sentence in respect of the cannabis charges is seven years imprisonment.
[3] You pleaded guilty after a sentence indication hearing in which I outlined the facts of your offending and indicated the sentence that would be imposed in the event that you entered guilty pleas shortly after the hearing.2 I took an overall starting point of eight years imprisonment. I then indicated I would allow a discount of two years to reflect guilty pleas. This produced an end sentence of six years imprisonment before taking into account any other mitigating factors that might come before the Court.
[4] I do not propose to set out the facts of your offending again. They are set out fully in my sentence indication remarks. They will be annexed to these sentencing remarks and will form part and parcel of it.
[5] In short, you became involved in this offending because of your close association with the Headhunter’s gang. That led you to become involved in the drug manufacturing and drug dealing activities in which the gang was involved. You stand before the Court for sentence today solely as a result of your association with the gang. I have no doubt that if you had not become involved with the gang, you
would not be sitting here today.
1 Offering to supply methamphetamine (x 14), supplying methamphetamine (x 9), conspiring to supply methamphetamine (x 3), possession of methamphetamine for supply (x 3), possessing methamphetamine (x 1), selling cannabis (x 1) offering to sell cannabis (x 2).R v Martin [2017] NZHC 731.
2 R v Martin [2017] NZHC 731.
Mitigating factors
[6] To your credit, you have now severed your ties with the gang. You say that you are not going to have anything further to do with them. You have also expressed your remorse in a letter to me. Your counsel has also tendered a number of certificates showing that you have used your time in custody on remand to engage in worthwhile learning projects.
[7] I consider that those factors warrant a further modest reduction. As I explained to you at the sentence indication hearing, the extent to which the Court can give credit for mitigating factors is reduced in cases of serious drug offending. Nevertheless, they can still be take into account. I propose to reduce the overall starting point by six months to reflect the factors to which I have referred.
Sentence
[8] On each of the methamphetamine-related charges, you are sentenced to five years six months imprisonment. You will serve those sentences concurrently.
[9] On each of the cannabis charges, you will sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. Those sentences will be served concurrently with each other, and concurrently with the sentence imposed in respect of the methamphetamine charges.
[10] Stand down.
Lang J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND OF THE REQUEST FOR A SENTENCING INDICATION IN ANY NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE IS PROHIBITED BY SECTION 63 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT
2011 UNTIL THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN SENTENCED OR THE CHARGE DISMISSED.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY
CRI-2015-088-3515 [2017] NZHC 731
THE QUEEN
v
REGIMEN MARTIN
Hearing: 12 April 2017 Appearances:
N J Dore for Crown
W McKean for DefendantJudgment:
12 April 2017
SENTENCE INDICATION OF LANG J
[1] Mr Martin faces 36 charges relating to the manufacturing and supply of methamphetamine. He also faces two charges of offering to sell and selling cannabis. He is due to stand trial along with a large number of other defendants in this Court on 1 May 2017.
[2] Mr Martin seeks a sentence indication in respect of the charges. A sentence indication is an indication of the sentence that would be imposed in the event that a defendant enters guilty pleas within a defined period after the indication is given. In the event that the defendant declines to accept the indication, it is of no further effect or precedential value.
Background
[3] All of the charges arose out of an operation in which the police investigated the manufacture and distribution of drugs in the wider Northland region by members and associates of the Headhunters gang. This resulted in the police intercepting a large number of text messages and other communications by the persons who were the subject of the operation. This resulted in the police intercepting a large number of text messages by and to Mr Martin.
[4] At this stage Mr Martin was a prospect for the gang. He was required to obey commands given to him by members of the gang, and this led to his participation in the offending. The most serious aspect of the offending is his involvement in a manufacturing operation that produced 240 grams of methamphetamine. The Crown does not allege that Mr Martin was one of the persons who physically manufactured the methamphetamine. Rather, he provided assistance to those persons by acquiring precursor materials and other materials of value in the manufacturing process. On any view of events, however, he was reasonably closely involved in the manufacturing process. He also delivered the finished product to other members of the gang.
[5] In addition, Mr Martin was selling cannabis and methamphetamine in his own right. Typically he would sell quantities of between half a gram and a gram of methamphetamine. This marks him out as a reasonably busy retail seller of methamphetamine. He also sold and offered to sell cannabis in small quantities.
Starting point
[6] The maximum sentence on the methamphetamine-related charges, other than those alleging a conspiracy, is life imprisonment. The maximum sentence on the conspiracy charges is 14 years imprisonment. The maximum sentence on the cannabis charges is seven years imprisonment.
[7] In total, Mr Martin supplied, offered to supply or conspired to supply 153.7 grams of methamphetamine. As I have already observed, the manufacturing operation that was the subject of the conspiracy charge produced 240 grams of methamphetamine, although there is a suggestion that much of this was of poor quality.
[8] The charges relating to the supply of methamphetamine would fall within the mid-range of Band 2 identified in R v Fatu.3 This relates to the supply of between five and 250 grams of methamphetamine. On their own, these charges would justify a starting point of around six years imprisonment.
[9] The starting point for the lead charge of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine is slightly more difficult to determine. Those who actually manufactured the methamphetamine would be subject to a starting point close to the top end of the range identified for Band 2 offending in Fatu. They would be subject to sentences of around ten to 11 years imprisonment. However, Mr Martin is only charged with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine which has a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment.
[10] I accept Mr McKean’s submission that Mr Martin was at the very bottom of the gang hierarchy because of his lowly status as a prospect. Nevertheless, he participated willingly in the activities of the operation. Notwithstanding his status, I consider that the starting point in relation to the conspiracy charge should be around the middle of the range. I consider an appropriate starting point in respect of that
charge is one of five years imprisonment.
3 R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA).
[11] Mr McKean submits that the Court should only add a token uplift in respect of the supply charges because they are really a flow-on consequence from the manufacturing charge. I disagree. To the extent that Mr Martin was prepared to on- sell methamphetamine to third parties, he engaged in a different form of criminal activity that warrants discrete recognition. Having regard to Mr Martin’s status within the gang and also taking into totality principles, I consider that an appropriate uplift to reflect the supply charges is one of three years imprisonment. This also takes into account the fact that the summary records that Mr Martin returned the proceeds of sale to the gang for its use. As a result he did not profit directly by the sales of methamphetamine that he instigated.
[12] This leads to an end sentence of eight years imprisonment before taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors. That sentence would also encompass Mr Martin’s culpability in relation to the cannabis charges.
Aggravating factors
[13] Although Mr Martin has previous convictions, none of them relate to drugs. For that reason the Crown does not seek an uplift to reflect previous convictions.
Mitigating factors
[14] The only mitigating factor in respect of which I would apply a discount at this stage relates to guilty pleas. Another Judge has advised that defendants in this proceeding who enter guilty pleas in the near future will receive a discount of 25 per cent. In Mr Martin’s case that represents a discount of two years. The indicated end sentence is therefore one of six years imprisonment. There may be room for a further small discount based on Mr Martin’s personal situation. Any such discount would, however, be modest because personal factors are not generally given great weight in this area of the law. I would need to see a pre-sentence report in order to ascertain whether any further discount is available.
[15] Given that this is Mr Martin’s first drug-related offence, I do not consider it necessary to impose a minimum term of imprisonment.
[16] Counsel for Mr Martin is to file a memorandum no later than Friday 21 April
2017 indicating whether Mr Martin wishes to accept the sentence indication. If he does, the proceeding will be listed for mention in the criminal callover in this Court
on 27 April 2017 at 9 am at which point Mr Martin would be arraigned.
Lang J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
0
0
0