R v Piahana
[2017] NZHC 2763
•10 November 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI 2016-092-11616 [2017] NZHC 2763
THE QUEEN
v
MEINTA PIAHANA QUEENIE MATTHEWS
Hearing: 10 November 2017 Counsel:
K Hogan for Crown
S Wimsett and C Patia for Ms Matthews
B Sellars for Mr PiahanaSentence:
10 November 2017
SENTENCE OF DUFFY J
Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau
McVeagh Fleming, Auckland
A Maxwell-Scott, Barrister, Auckland
Sam Wimsett, Barrister, AucklandBelinda Sellars, Barrister, Auckland
R v PIAHANA & MATTHEWS [2017] NZHC 2763 [10 November 2017]
Introduction
[1] Queenie Matthews and Meinata Piahana you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to charges of methamphetamine importation.
Background
[2] Together with others you were involved in importing methamphetamine into New Zealand through the international mail system. The offending took place between September 2015 and September 2016. It came to light through a joint undercover operation undertaken by the New Zealand Police and New Zealand Customs, codenamed Operation Cossack.
[3] Adrian Le’Ca has admitted he was the organiser of the importations. He has pleaded guilty to charges of methamphetamine importation and possession of class A controlled drugs for supply. He is to be sentenced at a later date. I was the Judge due to sentence him today and therefore I had the opportunity of reading something about him, as well as about yourselves. He is the brother of Ms Matthews and the uncle of Mr Piahana. Mr Uputaua, a friend of Mr Le’Ca, also assisted in the importations and was sentenced separately in September 2017.1 His offending was far more serious than yours. Given the previous good character of you both I consider that your offending is the direct result of your familial connection with Mr Le’Ca. Were it not for that connection I am sure that neither of you would be before the Court for sentence today and the Crown acknowledges that. I also see your offending as separate from and at a less serious level than that of Mr Uputaua. I see your offending as at the very bottom of this drug operation.
[4] You both reside at 5 Gypsy Moth Place, Papakura, which is the address
Mr Le’Ca listed as his address on his return from Thailand, where he had lived for six years. He is alleged to have gang connections. I understand he has been out of New Zealand for approximately 15 years. He had arrived back in New Zealand in
September 2015, shortly before the offending began.
1 R v Uputaua [2017] NZHC 2320.
[5] On 16 October 2017, you both pleaded guilty to various charges. They are summarised in the table attached as an appendix to these sentencing notes.
[6] On 6 October 2016 Police executed a search warrant at 5 Gypsy Moth Place and located empty shoe boxes with sticky notes referencing large amounts of cash.
Purposes and principles of sentencing
[7] Both of you were part of a commercial enterprise to import significant quantities of methamphetamine into New Zealand. It is well known that methamphetamine is an “insidious, pernicious and highly addictive drug”, responsible for “incalculable levels of misery”.2 I therefore consider it necessary to impose a sentence that will denounce and deter this conduct,3 and promote in offenders a sense of responsibility for the harm caused through their offending.4 Both of you must fully appreciate this as you, Ms Matthews, have lost a son and you, Mr Piahana, will have lost a brother, whose suicide was connected with the use of methamphetamine.
[8] However, I also note that I must take into account the gravity of the offending in the particular case, including the degree of culpability of each individual offender,5 as well as the general desirability of consistency with appropriate sentencing levels and other means of dealing with offenders in similar circumstances.6 The Sentencing Act also requires me to impose the least restrictive sentence in the circumstances.7
Multiple offences
[9] Each of you is charged with more than one offence. The Crown accepts that concurrent sentences are appropriate, given that the offences are similar in kind and
form part of a connected series.8 This means I will adopt a lead offence for each of
2 R v Keogh [2016] NZHC 508 at [20] per Moore J.
3 Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7(1)(e) and 7(1)(f). See the comments in Sarah v R [2013] NZCA 446 at
[42], where the Court of Appeal noted that “deterrence and denunciation must be the primary sentencing objectives” in the context of methamphetamine offending.
4 Sentencing Act, s 7(1)(b).
5 Sentencing Act, s 8(a).
6 Sentencing Act, s (8)(e).
7 Section 8(g).
8 Sentencing Act, s 84(2).
you and determine a sentence for that offence, uplifting it where necessary to reflect the totality of the offending.
[10] Given the need to consider your individual culpability, I shall deal with each of you in turn.
Ms Matthews
Starting point
[11] Ms Matthews you have pleaded guilty to one charge of importation of methamphetamine and two charges of attempted importation. Ordinarily the completed importation (charge 4) would be the lead offence, as it carries the most significant penalty (life imprisonment), but in this case the quantity of methamphetamine actually imported is unknown. I shall therefore take the attempted importation of 21 February 2016 (charge 5) as the lead offence, because that is the offence that involves a known quantity namely 280 grams of methamphetamine.
[12] I accept Mr Wimsett’s submission that you were not a primary offender. Rather, you played a support role, sometimes described as that of a “catcher”. There is no indication that you opened the packages of methamphetamine that were sent to your address, or arranged for their distribution. You did not have any sophisticated involvement in planning the scheme. This is consistent with your life experience and conduct to date which is worlds apart from the world of commercial-scale illicit importation of class A controlled drugs. Nonetheless there was, as you accept, a degree of wilful blindness as to the contents of the packages sent to the address. Your role was at a point where the offence was close to completion. It was at a low level of the illicit operation. Nonetheless a “catcher” plays a crucial part in the overall importation, by providing a safe address to which the packages can be sent without arousing suspicion. That describes the extent of your culpability.
[13] As for the fact that the importation was an attempt and was not actually completed, I place some weight on this in sentencing. However, the fact it was not completed was largely due to the intervention of Thai customs officers. The Crown
relies by analogy on the offence of conspiracy, noting the recent comments of the
Court of Appeal in Banaba v R:9
Where a defendant is convicted of a conspiracy charge an adjustment needs to be made to the Fatu guidelines in order to reflect the lower maximum penalties that can be imposed in conspiracy cases. It is also “equally logical that, the closer a conspiracy comes to execution, the closer it becomes in seriousness to the actual illegal act being planned”.
(footnotes omitted)
[14] The Crown notes that the quantity of methamphetamine involved in the offending was 280 grams, which would place it at the low end of band three of R v Fatu which is the tariff decision for class A controlled drug offending. The Crown seeks a starting point in the range of five to six years’ imprisonment.
[15] Your counsel submits that a starting point of four years’ imprisonment is appropriate on the lead offence. He refers to Lang J’s comments in sentencing
Mr Uputaua that a starting point in respect of the importation of 350 grams of methamphetamine would be in the region of four to five years’ imprisonment. I note however that this was merely a brief obiter comment as to a concurrent sentence to be imposed on the least serious offence. It also relates to a greater weight of methamphetamine.
[16] Counsel have not cited any comparable cases to me on this point, relying simply on what was said by Lang J in Uputaua.
[17] I have also considered Wallace v R,10 where a single package containing 197 grams of methamphetamine was sent to an Auckland address. Customs examined the package and discovered the contents. Ms Downs arrived at the mail centre and collected the package. She was arrested as she left the centre and later pleaded guilty to possession for supply of a Class A controlled drug. The sentencing Judge placed her within band two of Fatu, and adopted a starting point of five years. The Court of Appeal considered this too high given Ms Downs’ “significantly lesser role in the
offending”.11 She was not involved in arranging the importation; she was not involved
9 Banaba v R [2016] NZCA 122 at [30].
10 Wallace v R [2015] NZCA 571.
11 At [32].
in its onward supply; and there was no evidence that she was to profit from the arrangement. The Court of Appeal considered a starting point of four years appropriate on the offence of possession of methamphetamine for supply.
[18] Here I take the following factors into account in setting a starting point:
(a) your very limited involvement in the offending;
(b)your state of mind, which was one of wilful blindness rather than actual knowledge of the contents of the packages;
(c) the influence I consider Mr Le’Ca may have exerted upon you as his sister and someone who is vulnerable as a result of her health problems and who has never before been involved in criminal conduct, and so is likely to be naïve when it comes to the world of illicit drug dealing on a commercial scale; and
(d) the fact the lead offence is for attempted importation.
[19] I also note at this point Asher J’s comments in relation to levels of culpability and sentencing within a drug syndicate:12
… for those who are high in the chain of importation, the quantity and value is of prime importance. This is because the prime movers know exactly how large the importation is, and it can be assumed that they will be the persons who will be rewarded by the fruits of the importation. So they have the most express knowledge of scale, the damage that can be caused to the community and the profit to themselves. Where offenders are at a low level in the chain of command, then amount and value as aggravating factors, while still of importance, are less central.
(emphasis added)
[20] I consider a starting point of three and a half years’ imprisonment is appropriate on the lead offence. An uplift is necessary to reflect the other two charges, although I
note that the quantities of methamphetamine involved in each are entirely unknown.
12 Tilialo-Staples v Police [2013] NZHC 1255 at [21].
I therefore add six months, reaching an end starting point of four years’ imprisonment before considering personal mitigating features.
Personal circumstances of Ms Matthews
[21] You are aged 59. You have no previous convictions. Mr Wimsett points to a number of personal mitigating features and seeks discounts for each.
[22] I note at the outset that where someone is convicted of commercial-scale drug offending, little allowance is typically given for personal circumstances.13 This is because the need to deter dealing in drugs takes precedence. However, that is not to say that there is no room for compassion and that there is no basis for recognising the exceptional case. In R v Jarden, Mr Jarden was convicted on one charge of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.14 On appeal against sentence,15 the Supreme Court considered whether the sentencing Judge should have recognised Mr Jarden’s tragic personal circumstances: Mr Jarden had suffered from anxiety and depression for three years due to the mental illness of his partner, and his partner had committed suicide shortly before the trial while seven months’ pregnant with their child. The Court held that a discount of six months should have been made to reflect Mr Jarden’s overwhelming and tragic personal circumstances. I consider that your personal circumstances, Ms Matthews, are uniquely tragic and for that reason they warrant special recognition.
[23] Accordingly, I am satisfied that a substantial discount should be made for your personal circumstances. Mr Wimsett attaches an affidavit in which you depose that you suffer from panic disorder and anxiety, which you believe to be the result of trauma following your son’s suicide in 2004 (which is associated with his methamphetamine use) and your husband’s death from cancer in 2011. Your panic disorder and associated symptoms are confirmed in an affidavit from your doctor, David Jansen. It is clear from the affidavits that your anxiety and panic disorder have
a significant effect on your day-to-day life and require medication. Prior to your
13 R v Terewi [1999] 3 NZLR 62 (CA) at [13]; R v Wallace [1999] 3 NZLR 159 (CA) at [25], both cited with approval in R v Jarden [2008] NZSC 69, [2008] 3 NZLR 612 at [12]–[13].
14 R v Jarden HC Christchurch CRI-2005-009-1376, 18 June 2007.
15 R v Jarden, above n 13.
illness, you worked as a bus driver. Now you have difficulty leaving the house, and your son Mr Piahana lives with you and cares for you.
[24] You also suffer from a number of physical health problems, including atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, type 2 diabetes, gout, chronic nephropathy and transient ischaemic attacks. You are also receiving treatment for breast cancer.
[25] I am also required to take into account any particular circumstances of the offender that would mean a particular sentence is disproportionately severe.16 Here the multiple variety of severe health factors also support a substantial discount on account of your ill health. They would make serving the usual sentences that are imposed for this type of offending disproportionately severe. The Court of Appeal made the following comments on the quantum of such a discount in M (CA91/2012) v R:17
…the amount of discount given for [ill health] varies according to the particular circumstances of the offender and the offending. There is no discernible pattern, because both the circumstances of the offender and of the offending are so varied. Generally however the reductions given are limited. Whether a discount is appropriate and the amount of a discount is a matter of fact and degree and turns on particular circumstances of the case.
[26] In that case, the sentencing Judge had applied a 12.5 per cent discount to reflect the defendant’s age and ill health. He suffered from type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, some angina, hypertension, hearing loss and other degenerative health issues. The Court of Appeal upheld this discount.
[27] Greater discounts have been allowed in other cases on account of serious ill health. In Hastie v R, for example, an 18 per cent discount was applied in recognition of Mr Hastie’s significant health issues.18 The Court of Appeal in that case noted that discounts given for ill health have “ranged from approximately 14 to 33 per cent,
depending on the severity of the health conditions”.19
16 Sentencing Act, s 8(h).
17 M (CA91/2012) v R [2013] NZCA 325 at [54].
18 Hastie v R [2011] NZCA 498.
19 At [40].
[28] In the present case I am satisfied that a discount of 25 per cent should be awarded to reflect not only your physical and mental health difficulties, but also your family circumstances.
[29] Mr Wimsett submits that you are sincerely remorseful. I note however that I have no other basis on which to assess your remorse besides counsel submissions, as no letter has been provided to the Court and the pre-sentence report does not refer to your remorse. Those circumstances would ordinarily suggest no discount was warranted. However I consider for someone in your circumstances (namely, who has led a previously unblemished life and whose loss of a son through suicide may have some connection with his methamphetamine use), the expression of remorse from your counsel is sufficient to evidence this being genuine remorse on your part that warrants separate recognition. Accordingly, I consider a five per cent discount for genuine remorse is available.
[30] Mr Wimsett also seeks a discount of five per cent for previous good character. The Court of Appeal has indicated that a discount for good character:20
…will always be a matter of impression, involving consideration of matters such as the extent to which good character has been manifested in positive contributions to society, rather than merely the absence of convictions.
[31] First there is your age. You are now 59 years old and have never offended before, which is to your credit. Second, Mr Wimsett notes that you have fundraised for the Rosehill College netball teams, and supported and participated in the HopeWalk suicide and mental health awareness campaign. He says that you play a key support role for your grandchildren, great grandchildren and wider whānau. He submits, and I accept, that you have excellent prospects for rehabilitation. I will allow a discount of five per cent to account for your previous good character and rehabilitative prospects.
[32] Mr Wimsett also seeks a discount to reflect your assistance to police, noting that you fully co-operated with police by giving a full statement. He relies on R v Strickland for this submission, where it was noted that:21
An offender who confesses other offending to the police, especially in circumstances where conviction on those other offences might not otherwise have followed, or where the offender's co-operation saves the authorities considerable time and work, is entitled to have that co-operation taken into account when the sentence is fixed.
[33] Generally discounts for co-operation with police are given where the offender provides valuable assistance to police, for example giving evidence in the trial of a co- offender.22 You have not done this, but I understand your reasons why. As mentioned in Strickland, discounts have also been given where the offender confesses to a crime for which they had not previously been apprehended.23 I understand that your confession certainly made it easier for the Crown to establish the charges against you here. However, I am not satisfied in the present case that a discount should be given simply because you made an honest and open statement to police.
[34] Finally, you are entitled to a discount for your guilty plea. The Crown accepts that this should be “substantial”, and Mr Wimsett seeks the full 25 per cent discount. I note that you pleaded guilty only after an unsuccessful challenge to the admissibility of your police interview.24 You were entitled to challenge the admissibility of evidence and elected to exercise that right.25 Mr Wimsett informs me that the challenge was brought on his advice because once he became aware of your health problems he became concerned about whether you might not be able to provide a reliable account of your involvement in the offending. I am prepared to accept that any delay in entering a guilty plea was brought about by counsel’s caution, which I accept was a responsible reaction to the circumstances of this offending. There is also the delay that was caused by your health appointments. What discount you are entitled to after such a challenge is to be assessed on the facts.26 I consider that you can still be regarded as having pleaded guilty at “the first reasonable opportunity”.27 Accordingly,
I consider you are entitled to a discount of 25 per cent for your guilty plea.
22 See R v R CA62/96, 27 May 1996 at 5; R v Krasoudakis (1996) 14 CRNZ 487 at 490–491.
23 See R v Menzies HC Hamilton CRI-2008-019-8012, 22 April 2010 at [23].
24 R v Matthews [2017] NZHC 2458.
25 Mains v R [2016] NZCA 290 at [26].
26 Mains v R, above n 25, at [26]; see also Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 at [61].
27 Hessell v R, above n 26, at [75].
Conclusions
[35] Applying the discounts for personal mitigating features, and for the guilty plea, I reach an end sentence of just over 23 months’ imprisonment. That qualifies you for consideration for a sentence of home detention.
[36] Mr Wimsett submits that you should be sentenced to home detention. I note the desirability of imposing the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.28 The sentence I have reached makes you eligible for a sentence of home detention.29 The home detention report states that the address is suitable for serving a sentence of home detention. The report writer has recognised that if
Mr Piahana is also given home detention you will both be serving sentences of home detention, even though you are co-offenders, from the address where the offending took place. That usually would be a disqualifying factor, but the report writer in your particular case does not find that to be so and I agree with that approach. Accordingly, I am prepared to impose a sentence of 11 months’ home detention on you Ms Matthews.
Mr Piahana
[37] I turn now to Mr Piahana.
Starting point
[38] Mr Piahana, like Ms Matthews, has pleaded guilty to one charge of importation and two charges of attempted importation. I adopt as the lead offence the attempted importation of 280 grams of methamphetamine on 21 February 2016 (charge 5), which is characterised as an attempt only because the package was intercepted by Thai customs officers.
[39] Like Ms Matthews, the Crown accepts that your culpability is low due to your limited role in the importations. You too were simply a “catcher”, providing an address to which the packages could be sent. Ms Hogan seeks a starting point in the range of five to six years. Ms Sellars submits that a starting point in the region of three and a half to four years is appropriate on the lead offence.
[40] For the reasons expressed above in relation to Ms Matthews, I consider a lesser starting point appropriate. Further, I consider your involvement to be less serious than that of Ms Matthews because Ms Matthews was the legal occupier of the address to which the packages were sent. You were not. Accordingly, I consider a starting point of three years is appropriate on the lead charge of attempted importation. I would uplift that by six months to reflect the fact that you were involved in two other charges involving attempted importation or importation. Before considering factors personal to you I therefore reach an end starting point of three and a half years’ imprisonment.
Personal circumstances of Mr Piahana
[41] You are aged 29 years. Like your mother, you have no previous criminal convictions. The Crown accepts there are no personal aggravating factors warranting an uplift in your case.
[42] The pre-sentence report indicates you are single. You have worked at Tegel Foods Ltd since you were 17 years old. Your supervisor has provided a reference in which he states that you are a hard worker and excellent employee who is respected
by your colleagues. The esteem in which you are held is demonstrated by the fact that at one point (after arrest and remand in custody) your employer learnt of your offending and you ceased employment. Later, when you were granted bail, your employer was willing to give you your job back. It is to your credit that since the age of 17 you obtained employment with Tegel Chickens working on a processing chicken feed line and you have stuck to that job until the present time. Not many people in your circumstances do that and you deserve full credit for doing so.
[43] It is clear to me that you have demonstrated a good work ethic. You are the sole caregiver for your mother and Ms Sellars submits Ms Matthews would find it difficult to function without you. This demonstrates you have a strong commitment to your family in taking care of your mother, for which you are to be commended. Your pre-sentence report assesses you as presenting a low risk of re-offending. I am satisfied that were it not for your encounter with Mr Le’Ca you would have continued leading the exemplary law abiding life you had before this offending.
[44] I consider you are entitled to draw on those credits now. A discount of 15 per cent is appropriate to recognise your previous exemplary good character and prospects of rehabilitation.
[45] You have provided a letter to the Court in which you express deep remorse for your offending. You state that you understand the serious harm you could have inflicted on the community if the importations had succeeded, and that you are prepared to accept any punishment the Court sees fit to impose. I consider your remorse genuine and I am prepared to grant you a discount of 10 per cent for that remorse.
[46] Finally, Mr Piahana you are entitled to credit for your guilty plea, which averted the need for a trial. Ms Sellars seeks a discount of 25 per cent. You did not plead guilty until after Ms Matthews’ unsuccessful challenge to the admissibility of her police interview. I have already accepted there was good reason for that challenge. I consider you pleaded guilty “at the first reasonable opportunity”, and so I am prepared to apply a discount of 25 per cent.
Conclusions
[47] Applying the discounts mentioned above, I reach an end sentence of just under
24 months’ imprisonment, which makes you eligible for home detention. Ms Sellars seeks home detention for you. The home detention report writer says you are eligible to serve home detention from the same address as Ms Matthews. Accordingly, I am prepared to impose a sentence of 11 months’ home detention on you.
[48] There are some general comments I want to make about both of you, which also have caused me to view this case as unique and exceptional, and therefore warranting departure from the general approach that this Court applies in sentencing for this type of offending. It is clear to me that the impact of Mr Le’Ca’s return to New Zealand drew you into his world of criminal conduct. It is clear to me that you are people who acknowledge and live by principles of tikanga Māori, particularly whanaungatanga. I can understand that you both would have found it impossible to turn your back on him. That made you particularly vulnerable to the type of influence that he could exert on you. I think this is also something that sets this case apart. People who have led their lives as you have done would never have done anything like this but for him. It becomes apparent to this Court that people who live in poor conditions and poor housing areas will, from time to time, meet people with criminal contacts. Crime and poverty unfortunately and regrettably go hand in hand. Yet you have lived in that world of poor, low socio-economic conditions and you have managed always to maintain good character until now. I think that warrants special recognition also.
[49] In addition, it has always been recognised in this country that the sentence of home detention reflects that society’s interests are better served in some cases by the impositions of restrictions on liberty through home detention rather than through imprisonment. They were the words of the Court of Appeal in R v Hill.30 There are acknowledged advantages of home detention. It includes lower rates of re-conviction and re-imprisonment, high compliance rates and positive support for offenders’ reintegration and rehabilitation. Secondly, home detention sits within the general
context of the Sentencing Act. It is not an easy option. A sentence of 11 months’ home
30 R v Hill [2008] 2 NZLR 381 (CA) at [33].
detention will be difficult for both of you to serve. Further, I am sure that for people like you, who have been of good character, the fact that you now find yourselves in this Court, and that you will now carry for the rest of your lives serious criminal convictions will be crushing.
[50] Accordingly, I consider that in all the circumstances you warrant a special approach and that is why I have departed from the usual approach for sentencing for this offending. Will you please stand.
Result
[51] Ms Matthews and Mr Piahana you are both sentenced to sentences of home detention for the period of 11 months’ duration. The recommended special conditions set out in the pre-sentence report are to apply as are the standard conditions for a sentence of home detention.
[52] Ms Matthews, on charge 6 on the Crown’s charge sheet, the Crown offers no evidence and accordingly that is dismissed pursuant to s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
[53] Mr Piahana, on charges 2, 3 and 6 on the Crown charge sheet they are dismissed pursuant to s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
[54] Ms Matthews, Mr Piahana, kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui.
Duffy J
Defendant Charge
Quantity and purity of drug
Additional facts
Queenie
Matthews
Charge 2: attempted importation of a Class A drug (methamphetamine)31
Unknown
• 13 November 2015
• Package addressed to family member of Ms Matthews
• Received by Ms
Matthews
• Expected to contain methamphetamine, but it did not
Charge 4: importation of Class A controlled drug (methamphetamine)32
Unknown
• 29 December 2015
• Two packages delivered to 5 Gypsy Moth Place
• First package signed for by Ms Matthews
• Each weighed 18.9 kilograms and purported to contain lights
• The packages in fact contained methamphetamine
Charge 5: attempted importation of a Class A drug (methamphetamine)33
280 grams of methamphetamine (90.42% purity)
• 21 February 2016
• Package intercepted by Thai customs officers
• Addressed to 5 Gypsy
Moth Place, to
Candice Taite (an alias of Ms Matthews)
31 Sections 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and 72 of the Crimes Act 1961; maximum penalty 10
Meinata
Piahana
Charge 1: attempted importation of a Class A drug (methamphetamine)34
280 grams of methamphetamine (unknown purity)
• 17 October 2015
• Package intercepted by Thai customs officers
• Addressed to Fred Maea (an alias of Mr Uputaua) at Mr Uputaua’s home address. Mr Uputaua and Mr Piahana have been friends since childhood.
Charge 4: importation of Class A controlled drug (methamphetamine)35
Unknown quantity
• 29 December 2015
• Two packages delivered to 5 Gypsy Moth Place
• First package signed for by Ms Matthews
• Each weighed 18.9 kilograms and purported to contain lights
• The packages in fact contained methamphetamine
Charge 5: attempted importation of a Class A drug (methamphetamine)36
280 grams of methamphetamine (90.42% purity)
• 21 February 2016
• Package intercepted by Thai customs officers
• Addressed to 5 Gypsy
Moth Place, to
Candice Taite (an alias of Ms Matthews)
34 Sections 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and 72 of the Crimes Act; maximum penalty 10 years’
5
9
0