R v Parata

[2016] NZHC 1245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2015-063-2651 [2016] NZHC 1245

THE QUEEN

v

LAWRENCE KYLIE KONEHU PARATA

Hearing:	10 June 2016
Appearances:	M Jenkins for Crown G Tomlinson for Defendant
Sentence:	10 June 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v PARATA [2016] NZHC 1245 [6 June 2016]

[1]      Mr Parata, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a charge of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply.   The maximum sentence for that charge is life imprisonment.

The facts

[2]      The facts of your offending are to be gleaned from a summary of facts with which you take no issue.   In short, the police stopped a vehicle near Matata on

30 May 2015. You were sitting in the front passenger seat of the vehicle.  The police searched the vehicle and found two plastic zip lock bags in the glove box.  One of these contained approximately one ounce, or 28 grams, of methamphetamine.  The other contained two grams of methamphetamine.   In all, therefore, you were in possession of approximately 30 grams of methamphetamine. You told the police that you had obtained the methamphetamine, but that it was not for you.

Starting point

[3]      The starting point for the sentence to be imposed upon you must be selected having  regard  to  the  guideline  judgment  of  the  Court  of Appeal  in  R  v  Fatu.1

Counsel agree that your offending falls within category 2 identified in that judgment. This relates to the supply or possession of between five and 250 grams of methamphetamine.  Offending in this range calls for a starting point of between three and nine years imprisonment.  Given the fact that you were found in possession of

30 grams of methamphetamine, you are obviously not at the bottom of this band.  On the other hand, you did not have any of the other trappings of a drug dealer and it may well be that your explanation to the police was correct.

[4]      The Crown has referred me to a number of cases in which a starting point of around four years imprisonment has been selected for offending involving approximately 30 grams of methamphetamine.2    I propose to select a starting point of three and a half years imprisonment because of the fact that there were no other

indiciae of drug dealing activity found in the car.

1      R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72.

2      R v Serville & Faithfull HC Auckland CRI-2006-004-18441, 29 August 2008; R v Haira HC Rotorua CRI-2009-063-5871, 24 November 2011.

Aggravating factors

[5]      You have a very lengthy list of previous convictions, but none of them relate to offending of this type.  For that reason I do not add an uplift to reflect previous convictions.

Mitigating factors

[6]      I now need to consider mitigating factors personal to you that operate to reduce the starting point I have selected.

[7]      You have spent approximately ten months on EM bail.  I acknowledge that this  was  a  significant  restriction  on  your liberty.    During that  period  you  were allowed to leave your property on two occasions to attend family events.  There was also one occasion on which you were found absent from the address.

[8]      Your counsel has argued that I should treat the ten months you have spent on home detention as the equivalent of 20 months imprisonment.  To take that approach would be to ignore several cases in which the Court of Appeal has firmly indicated that this type of approach is not to be adopted.3

[9]      The Court of Appeal has said that sentencing Judges may apply a modest discount  to  reflect  the fact  that  an  offender  has  been  subject  to  restrictive  bail conditions.4     The discount that the Court allows must have regard to all of the circumstances.   In your case I am prepared to allow a discount of four months to reflect the fact that you have been on restrictive bail conditions.   This brings the starting point down to three years two months, without taking into account your

guilty pleas.

[10]     Your counsel and the Crown agree that a discount of around 20 per cent is appropriate to reflect your guilty pleas.  They do not come at the earliest opportunity

and they are entered in the face of a very strong Crown case.  Nevertheless, your trial

3      Rangi v R [2014] NZCA 524; Keown v R [2010] NZCA 492.

4      Rangi v R above n 3, at [10].

is not due to begin until September 2016.   For that reason I am able to allow a discount of eight months, or 20 per cent, to reflect that factor.

Sentence

[11]     On the charge to which you have pleaded guilty you are sentenced to two years six months imprisonment.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Rotorua