R v Paraha HC Whangarei CRI-2010-088-2612
[2011] NZHC 1031
•7 September 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY
CRI-2010-088-2612
THE QUEEN
v
ALBERT PARAHA
Counsel: D B Stevens for Crown
C Muston for Prisoner
Judgment: 7 September 2011
SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J
SOLICITORS
Marsden Woods Inskip & Smith (Whangarei) for Crown
Christopher Muston (Whangarei) for Prisoner
R V PARAHA HC WHA CRI-2010-088-2612 7 September 2011
[1] Mr Paraha, you appear for sentence on two counts of offering to supply the Class A drug, methamphetamine. The maximum penalty on each count is life imprisonment. This demonstrates how seriously society regards dealing in methamphetamine.
Facts
[2] Your offending came to light as a result of a Police operation (Operation Arabia) into drug offending by members or associates of the Headhunters gang in Northland. You are a patched member of the Headhunters gang. A search warrant executed on Two Degrees revealed text messages from your phone number from January 2010 to March 2010 arranging methamphetamine sales. The offending for which you are now to be sentenced involved twice dealing in amounts of two grams to individuals from your home address. The total amount offered for supply was four grams.
Purposes and principles of sentencing
[3] In deciding what sentence should be imposed on you, I have to take into account the established sentencing principles. In the context of serious drug offending, there is a strong public interest in denouncing your offending and imposing a sentence that will deter others. Methamphetamine is probably the drug which is causing the most damage to our society today. It is a key driver of crime throughout New Zealand and many lives have been ruined by it.
[4] I must take into account the seriousness of your offending and the degree of your culpability. The sentence I impose on you must be consistent with those imposed on others who have offended in a similar way. Finally, I have to look at ways to assist your rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.
[5] The first step in sentencing is to assess your culpability by looking purely at the offending committed. That results in a term of imprisonment which is a starting point. The second stage of sentencing is to consider factors personal to you to decide whether the starting point should be adjusted either up or down.
[6] In terms of your culpability, I have very little discretion in setting a starting point. You are the latest of very many people to be sentenced for offering to supply methamphetamine. The case of R v Fatu,[1] which has been referred to by the lawyers, is the Court of Appeal case which I have to follow because it sets out the sentencing bands for methamphetamine supply. I agree with Crown counsel and with your lawyer that your offending falls within band 1 of that tariff. Band 1 covers low level supplies of methamphetamine of less than five grams and it attracts a starting point in a range of two to four years’ imprisonment.
[1] R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA).
[7] In deciding where to fix the starting point for your sentence, I should look at the starting points imposed for the other offenders who have already been sentenced in Operation Arabia:
(a) Mr Reece Clunie pleaded guilty to seven counts of offering to supply methamphetamine and three counts of supplying methamphetamine. The total amount of methamphetamine was 17.75 grams. The starting point in his case was four years’ imprisonment.[2]
[2] R v Clunie HC Whangarei CRI-2010-088-2776, 10 June 2011, Brewer J.
(b)Mr Laurence Fenton pleaded guilty to 33 counts of offering to supply methamphetamine, 11 counts of conspiring to supply methamphetamine, and three counts of offering to supply cannabis. The quantity of methamphetamine involved was 13.4 grams. A
starting point of four years was fixed.[3]
[3] R v Fenton DC Whangarei CRI-2010-088-2723, 17 December 2010, Judge Bouchier.
(c) Mr Tuaru Kingi pleaded guilty to 25 counts of offering to supply or supplying methamphetamine. The total quantity of methamphetamine was 8.6 grams. The Judge identified a starting point of three years nine months’ imprisonment.[4]
[4] R v Kingi HC Whangarei CRI-2010-088-2612, 27 July 2011, Wylie J.
(d)Ms Channelle Matthews pleaded guilty to nine counts of offering to supply methamphetamine and three counts of conspiring to supply methamphetamine. The quantity of methamphetamine totalled
3.6 grams. A starting point of two years nine months’ imprisonment
was identified.[5]
[5] R v Matthews HC Whangarei CRI-2010-088-2612, 13 April 2011, Venning J.
(e) Mr Frank Rota pleaded guilty to three counts of offering to supply methamphetamine. The sentencing notes do not reveal the quantity of methamphetamine involved but it was clearly at the lower level of Fatu band 1. The sentencing Judge took a starting point of two years
nine months’ imprisonment.[6]
[6] Police v Rota DC Whangarei CRI-2010-088-2600, 14 April 2011, Judge TH Everitt.
(f) Mr Shannon Tohu pleaded guilty to four counts of supplying methamphetamine and four counts of offering to supply methamphetamine. The quantity of methamphetamine involved was less than two grams in total. A starting point of two years six months was adopted by the sentencing Judge.[7]
(g)Ms Helena McGee pleaded guilty to 13 counts, 10 of which were offering to supply methamphetamine, two were of actually supplying methamphetamine, and one was offering to supply cannabis. The quantity of methamphetamine involved was 4.35 grams. The quantity of cannabis involved was one ounce. A starting point of three years
and two months was adopted by the sentencing Judge.[8]
[7] R v Tohu HC Whangarei CRI-2010-088-2691, 7 October 2010, Andrews J.
[8] R v McGee HC Whangarei CRI-2010-088-2612, 6 July 2011, Asher J.
[8] The Crown submits that a starting point of three to four years’ imprisonment is appropriate in your case. The Crown notes that the quantity of four grams is close to the five grams at the top of band 1 of Fatu. I am asked to take account of the fact that the occasions which are the subject of your charges were only three days apart and that you were in a position to offer a substantial quantity of methamphetamine (two grams on each occasion). It is acknowledged that there are only two charges but the quantity of methamphetamine is submitted to be of more significance than the number of charges.
[9] On your behalf Mr Muston submits that a starting point of two years’ imprisonment would be appropriate. He submits also that the case of Mr Rota is closest to yours. He points to the eventual sentence in that case of one year and
10 months’ imprisonment and bases his submission that home detention is an appropriate option in your case on the assumption that I would likewise come to an end point of less than two years’ imprisonment. However, Mr Rota pleaded guilty at an early stage and at a time when the law allowed him a one-third discount for his plea. Mr Muston also refers me to a decision of the Court of Appeal, namely R v Hill,[9] and I will refer to that later.
[9] R v Hill [2008] NZCA 41.
[10] In your case, because of the amount of methamphetamine, I fix a starting point of three years.
Personal factors
[11] You are 28 years old and unemployed. You are a fully patched member of the Headhunters gang. You say you dealt in methamphetamine to fund your own habit. The pre-sentence report notes that you do not show remorse and the author of the report is of the view that you have a high risk of reoffending. I agree with the author of the report. Your membership of the Headhunters is a part of your lifestyle, you knew exactly what you were getting yourself into when you started dealing in methamphetamine, and there is nothing to show that you will not return to dealing in
the drug.
[12] I note from the documents handed to me by your lawyer that you have successfully completed an intensive outpatient programme with the Hanmer Clinic in Hamilton as a start to addressing your own drug habit. That is an encouraging sign. But you certainly do not intend to disassociate yourself from your Headhunters comrades. Your situation is very different from that in R v Hill. Mr Hill had a high motivation to change, had made good progress towards rehabilitation and was assessed as being at a very low risk of reoffending.
[13] You have 10 previous convictions, three of which are drug related. On
7 December 2010 you received imprisonment sentences (for a total of six months) for producing cannabis oil and possessing cannabis plant. However, it appears these sentences related to offending which occurred during the same period as the current offending, and as the sentences have already been served I do not think they should be treated as aggravating your current sentence. Your criminal record does mean that you can claim no discount for good character.
[14] You are, however, entitled to a discount for your pleas of guilty. These did not come at an early stage, still less at the earliest properly available opportunity. Some seven months elapsed from the time that the indictment against you was filed. The Crown submits that a discount of 15% is properly available to you. I think that the Crown is being somewhat generous given that the maximum discount available for an early guilty plea is 25%. Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept the Crown’s assessment and give you a discount of 15%. This reduces the starting point of three years by (in the round) six months.
[15] Accordingly, on each of the counts 2 and 3 in the indictment you are sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment. These terms will be served concurrently.
[16] On counts 1 and 4 in the indictment the Crown offers no evidence and you are discharged on both of those counts.
Home detention
[17] Because the end sentence is greater than two years the possibility of home detention does not arise. Stand down.
Brewer J
0