R v Read

[2013] NZHC 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2011-070-7563

CRI-2012-070-1397 [2013] NZHC 2005

THE QUEEN

v

GARY JOHN READ KAHSHARN ORIINI READ JADE BRADY

Hearing:                   9 August 2013

Appearances:           R Jenson for Crown

P Mabey QC for G Read
T Balme for K Read
R Weir and H Carson for J Brady

Judgment:                9 August 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v READ & ORS [2013] NZHC 2005 [9 August 2013]

Introduction

[1]      Gary John  Read,  Jade Brady and  Kahsharn Oriini  Read,  you  appear  for sentence having pleaded guilty to a variety of drug offences relating to a substantial importation and distribution enterprise.

[2]      Mr Read, you pleaded guilty to 70 counts of importing the controlled drug pseudoephedrine.  I think 68 of those were at a time when the drug was classified as a Class C drug and two as a Class B; one count of possession of pseudoephedrine for supply; one count of possession of the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine for supply; one count of the unlawful possession of a firearm; and one count of participating in an organised criminal group.

[3]     Ms Brady, you pleaded guilty to one representative count of supplying methamphetamine; one count of possession of methamphetamine for supply; one count of possession of the Class A drug LSD; one count each of possession of the Class C drugs BZP and cannabis for sale; one count of possession of a stun gun which is a restricted weapon; and one count of participating in an organised criminal group.

[4]      Following your guilty pleas Ms Read, you are for sentence on nine counts of importing pseudoephedrine.

Factual background

[5]      In February 2009, the Organised Financial Crime Agency in New Zealand began an investigation into persons of interest involved in organised crime.   The investigating authorities received information that you, Mr Read, were involved in importing significant quantities of pseudoephedrine into New Zealand and supplying it to local gangs.   Pseudoephedrine is a precursor to and vital ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamine.

[6]      It soon became apparent that  you were  masterminding a large scale and sophisticated importation operation predicated on commercial gain.   This entailed

crushing ephedrine tablets and mixing them into a paste which would then be concealed  in  cosmetic  containers.     The  cosmetic  containers  were  mixed  and packaged in Thailand, where you often travelled, and then mailed to New Zealand. The  packages  were  sent  on  a  frequent  basis  from  around  July  2009  until September 2011.

[7]      A scattergun approach was used whereby the packages were sent to a number of different persons in New Zealand.   Apart from several packages which were intercepted by Customs, all of the packages which were sent were delivered to the intended recipients.   They were generally sent to close family members, most of whom were unwitting and assumed the packages related to your legitimate herbal remedies business and were being sent to them so you could avoid paying customs duties.  Others, such as you Ms Read, were not so unwitting; and the case against you was that you were wilfully blind and your guilty pleas mean you accept that.

[8]      It  is  clear,  Mr  Read,  that  you  headed  this  importation  and  distribution enterprise.   You controlled the distribution of the pseudoephedrine through to methamphetamine cooks and you received at least some of the finished product at the end.  You then used people like Ms Brady to distribute it.  That is the basis of the charge of participating in an organised criminal group.

[9]      Where offending reaches the scale involved here, and where only a small number of the total consignments were inspected and analysed, calculating the exact weight of pure pseudoephedrine imported is not possible and a rather speculative estimation is required.  The Crown has estimated a total of 15 to 19 kilograms of pure pseudoephedrine was imported in the 70 consignments you arranged, Mr Read. You dispute that and say the total quantity would have been 10 to 14 kilograms, because fewer pots were included in the earliest consignments than the three pots found in the consignments which were intercepted and analysed.  By either estimate, your offending involved a very large quantity of pseudoephedrine.

[10]     For the purposes of sentencing you today, I assess the total quantity imported as being between the highest point of your estimate and the bottom of the Crown’s range, namely, 14.5 kilograms.  I emphasise that that is an estimate and one which is

somewhat artificial but, I think, realistic in the circumstances.   In cases involving large-scale importations of pseudoephedrine, the Court’s principal concern is with the amount of methamphetamine which is ultimately going to be produced from the pseudoephedrine in question.1   To the extent that street value provides a guide to the significance of the offending, I assess the value of the importations on the basis that the  estimates  provided  suggest  that  14.5  kilograms  of  pseudoephedrine  would

produce around 8.5 kilograms of “pure” – that is of the order of 70 to 80 percent methamphetamine - having a street value of between $3.1 million to $4.5 million if sold in one-ounce bags, or $6.1 million to $8.7 million if sold in smaller “point” bags.  Because of the uncertainties inherent in this type of calculation, the number of importations also provides a basis for assessing the seriousness of the offending as does the period during which the offending occurred.

[11]     The charge of possessing methamphetamine against you, Mr Read, arises after you were observed burying an item in a secluded garden area in a reserve in Tauranga.   This item was found by Police to be a plastic tupperware container housing 198 grams of methamphetamine with a street value estimated at around

$139,000 to $198,000.

[12]     The charge of possessing pseudoephedrine relates to the execution of a Police search warrant on your address.   You were found in the kitchen with one of the pseudoephedrine packages which had been imported.

[13]     The charge of unlawful possession of a firearm arises after you had been threatened and obtained a pistol which you kept in your possession.   The Police intercepted communications which suggested that you had been confronted by two individuals and you said you had sent them running “with a hail of things chasing behind them”.

[14]     Ms Brady, the representative count of supplying methamphetamine arises after it was established by the Police that you were supplying methamphetamine to several people who then on-sold the product on your behalf.   You received the

money from the sales and accounted to Mr Read for it after taking your cut of the

1      R v Xie [2007] 2 NZLR 240 (CA) at [22]-[23].

money.  It is unclear just what quantity of methamphetamine you handled during the period between June and September 2011, but a total of two and a half grams was found in your possession when you were arrested, along with other paraphernalia indicating you were involved in selling and cutting the drug.   It may be properly inferred  from  this  and  text  message  evidence  that  substantially  more  than  this amount of methamphetamine was involved in your dealings.

[15]     The other drug charge relate to quantities of drugs found in your possession at the time of your arrest.  The stun gun was found in the house occupied by you, charged and in a “ready” state.  The association between drug dealing and possession of a firearm, albeit a stun gun, has sinister overtones.

[16]     Ms Read, your guilty pleas mean that you accept the Crown’s allegation of wilful blindness.  The nine importations you received contained up to 1.86 kilograms of  pure  pseudoephedrine.    Converted  to  methamphetamine,  it  was  capable  of yielding  high  purity methamphetamine  with  a  potential  street  value  of  between

$380,000 and $570,000 if sold in one ounce bags.  If sold in point bags, the value would range from $756,000 to $1.1 million.

Personal circumstances

Gary Read

[17]     Mr Read, you are 45 years old and at the time of your arrest you were self- employed, operating a company involved in the distribution of herbal products.  It was by all accounts a successful business. You have three young children in addition to your co-accused, Kahsharn Read.   You have 51 previous convictions, nine of which are for historic cannabis-related offending.

[18]     I  have  received  a  pre-sentence  report  prepared  by  the  Department  of Corrections to assist in sentencing you today.   You told the report writer that you were introduced to drugs and alcohol at a young age.  You claimed to have become obsessed with the idea of producing health products which would revive your youthful look.  You discovered that people overseas were already doing this, hence

your trips to Thailand.   You feely admitted to importing the pseudoephedrine, but you qualified that by saying it was out of an attempt to produce health-enhancing products.  Given the use of the pseudoephedrine to produce a large quantity of the most evil and destructive drug now available in New Zealand I do not accept that explanation.

[19]     The  report  writer  said  that  you  expressed  regret  and  remorse  for  your behaviour  and  that  you  showed  insight  into  your crimes  and  you  were able  to articulate the impact of your actions on others who were affected.  You expressed a willingness  to  address  your  offending  behaviour,  and  the  report  writer  noted  a number of academic and practical courses and activities you have been involved in since your remand in custody.

[20]     You are assessed you as presenting a moderate to medium risk of reoffending and a moderate to medium risk of harm to others.  But the report writer noted, of course, that a long term of imprisonment is inevitable.

Jade Brady

[21]     Ms Brady, you are 30 years old.  You only have one previous conviction, for the possession of cannabis.

[22]     You told the writer of the pre-sentence report that you had a tough upbringing and that your problems with drugs arose from associating with the wrong type of people.  You initially began working for Mr Read on a casual basis as his driver and you eventually ended up renting a house from him.   However,  you denied any involvement in the selling of drugs and claim you were innocent and naive about what was going on as you thought much of what occurred had to do with Mr Read’s herbal pill business.

[23]     However,  you reported  regular use of cannabis  and methamphetamine in recent years, and you claimed that the cannabis and the LSD found on your person were for your own use.   You denied selling methamphetamine but said that you would swap it for things such as laptops.

[24]     The pre-sentence report notes that, somewhat belatedly, you self-referred to the Bay of Plenty Addiction Service. At the time of the report you were on a waiting list but I see from the certificate provided by Mr Weir that you have attended that course covering a number of matters which will assist you to overcome your addiction.  Despite those steps you were re assessed in May as presenting a high risk of reoffending.   The pre-sentence report recommends a sentence of imprisonment and says that home detention is not appropriate for you as there would be little to prevent you taking drugs or associating with drug dealers.  The writer of the report sees prison as the most appropriate sentence as it will provide you the best opportunity to separate yourself from the destructive environment you have been in and get the treatment that you need.

[25]     I  note,  however,  that  you  say  things  have  improved  since  you  were interviewed and the risk of your re-offending should be re-assessed.   Giving you credit for the steps described in your letter to the Court and the statements of your ambition for the future, and giving such weight as I can to the supporting letters you have provided, I am prepared to infer that the re-offending risk might be downgraded somewhat to around about medium but I regard it as too soon to say that your associations with your former lifestyle has been severed altogether.

Kahsharn Read

[26]     Ms Read, you are 26 years old; you have twin three-year old boys.  You have previously been employed in hairdressing and in cafes, although you are now a stay- at-home mother and you receive the domestic purposes benefit. You do not have any prior convictions.

[27]     It appears your pregnancy was difficult and you were hospitalised several times.  You have a number of health issues such as epilepsy and you have developed hyperthyroidism and are undergoing tests to determine its extent.

[28]     You told the writer of your pre-sentence report that you were naive as to the contents of the packages you received and you thought they were related to some form of customs tax evasion.  However, you have accepted responsibility for your

offending.  You claimed to be “absolutely shocked” when you discovered what the packages contained and you rightly feel deceived by your father’s behaviour.  The writer of the  report  considered  that  your explanation  and  your remorse seemed genuine and they appeal to me in that way as well.  In an affidavit to the Court, you said that you can only recall receiving four packages and consider the other five would have been delivered while you were in hospital and Mr Read would have picked them up from your front doorstep without you seeing or receiving them.

[29]     You are assessed as being a low risk of reoffending and a low risk of harm to others.  A sentence of home detention is recommended and the proposed address is deemed as suitable for such a sentence.

Purposes and principles of sentencing

[30]     I am required in fixing the appropriate penalties for each of you to consider a number of sentencing purposes and principles as set out in the Sentencing Act 2002. The relevant purposes I have particularly taken into account are:2

(a)       holding you accountable for the harm done to the community by your involvement in major drug dealing;

(b)promoting in you a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgement of, that harm;

(c)       denouncing your conduct;

(d)      deterring you and other persons from such offending; and

(e)       so   far   as   it   is   possible,   assisting   in   your   rehabilitation   and reintegration.

[31]     I have also taken into account a number of principles of sentencing3  which include considering the gravity of the offending and the degree of culpability, which

2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 7.

3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 8.

varies between you, as well as the need to impose the least restrictive outcome which is appropriate in the circumstances.  In your case, Mr Read, I have also considered the need to impose the maximum penalty prescribed for an offence if the offending is within the most serious of cases.

Sentencing approach

[32]     The approach I intend to follow4 in fixing a sentence for each of you involves considering the circumstances and seriousness of the offending you each committed and which I have just described, and setting what is known as the starting point with the aid of any guideline decisions or comparable cases.  Because you have each been convicted of more than one offence, I need to consider which offence to focus on and what effect the other offences should have on that sentence as well.  I then need to consider whether there are any relevant aggravating or mitigating features personal to you which might increase or reduce the sentence from that starting point.  Finally, I must apply an appropriate discount to reflect your guilty pleas.

Submissions

Crown submissions

[33]     The Crown says that the appropriate starting point for the totality of your offending, Mr Read, is around 12 to 13 years’ imprisonment.  An uplift is sought for your prior convictions.  The Crown accepts that you are entitled to credit for your guilty plea, although it says that any credit given should be measured against the strong Crown case and the fact that you pleaded guilty over a year after committal and right at the start of your trial.  Finally, the Crown seeks a minimum period of imprisonment of half of the end sentence.

[34]     Ms Brady, having regard to the sentence indication I gave to you, the Crown says the issue to be determined in your case is whether you are to receive a sentence of imprisonment or home detention.  I indicated to you that home detention could be an option if all factors fell in favour of a lenient and indulgent sentence; in particular

I said you needed to show that you presented a low risk of reoffending.  The Crown says that the pre-sentence report assesses you as a high risk of reoffending and that further and more intensive programmes are required to address  your underlying problems.  On that basis, the Crown submits that a sentence of imprisonment is the most  appropriate  outcome  as  it  will  enable  you  to  access  the  appropriate rehabilitative programmes which are currently unavailable to you in the community.

[35]     Ms Read, I also gave a sentence indication to you in which I said that a sentence of home detention was potentially available.  The Crown notes that your pre-sentence report recommends such a sentence and it is conceded that you are a suitable candidate for home detention.   The Crown says, however, that a lengthy term will provide a sufficient response to your offending.

Defence submissions

[36]     Mr  Mabey  QC  submits  on  your  behalf,  Mr  Read,  that  the  charge  of possession of methamphetamine for supply should be taken as the lead offence and that a starting point not exceeding seven years should be adopted.  He submits that an uplift of two years’ imprisonment would be appropriate to reflect the totality of the offending and  that  there should  be no  uplift  for  your previous  convictions. Mr Mabey has raised a number of factors in mitigation including your diligence and application to academic studies and management roles within the prison bakery during your time on remand.  He submits that a discount of between 10 to 15 percent would be appropriate for your guilty plea.

[37]     Ms Brady, in written submissions filed at the time you sought a sentence indication, Mr Chisnall submitted that you should be treated as a low-level supplier whose alleged offending brought you within Band 1 of the R v Fatu5  guideline judgment.  He suggested that having regard to your position in the hierarchy and the quantity of methamphetamine involved that a two year starting point should be taken, with an uplift of a further 12 months to reflect the totality of your offending

including the possession of a stun-gun.  He argued you were entitled to discount for a previous good record and a further discount of approximately 20 percent on account

of a guilty plea.  Mr Chisnall suggested that the end sentence would be such as to justify consideration of a sentence of home detention as an alternative to imprisonment.

[38]     Today,  Mr  Weir  has  endorsed  that  approach  in  general  terms  but  has particularly  addressed  the  reasons  for  the  sentence  indication  which  I  gave  on

29 April 2013.  In assessing the starting point I took into account that your offending took  place  over  a  period  of  three  months;  that  you  were  more  than  a  mere functionary and street-level dealer and that the total quantity of methamphetamine significantly exceeded the 5 gram threshold referred to in  R v Fatu as dividing Band 1 from Band 2.   Mr Weir suggests a starting point of two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment but leading on to a submission that the presumption of imprisonment for drug dealing offences should not apply in your case.   He emphasises that you have made significant lifestyle changes since the pre-sentence report was prepared in May and submits that they reduce the risk of re-offending significantly.   He notes that there are others who have indicated a willingness to support you with work offers  and  in  other  ways  and  that  the  suggested  home  detention  address  will physically remove you from your previous associations.

[39]     On your behalf, Ms Read, Mr Balme accepts that the starting point given at the sentence indication of three years and nine months’ imprisonment is applicable. He submits  there  are  a  number of mitigating  factors  including  that  there  is  no evidence  that  you  obtained  any  financial  benefit  or  monetary  gain  from  the offending; that you felt manipulated and under pressure by your father; that your offending involved wilful blindness rather than malicious intent; he acknowledges your remorse and previous good character; and your health issues.  He submits that taking these factors and your guilty plea into account, the final sentence should be one of home detention.

Sentence – Gary Read

[40]     I turn now to explaining the approach I am going to take to your individual sentences and I will deal with each of you in turn.

Starting point

[41]     Mr Read, you were clearly the mastermind of the importation and distribution enterprise.    The  amount  of  pseudoephedrine  involved  was  capable  of  yielding millions of dollars worth of methamphetamine and for that reason I treat the importation offending overall as the lead offending.  Pseudoephedrine is an essential ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamine and is itself now a Class B drug, although, as I have noted, for the majority of your offending it was a Class C drug. But the change in categorisation reflects the serious harm that methamphetamine inflicts on the community.   In cases which involve the importation of significant quantities of pseudoephedrine over a lengthy period of time, deterrent sentences must be imposed.

[42]     There is no tariff decision for pseudoephedrine offending, although in one case it was said that those who import pseudoephedrine fall into two categories.6

The masterminds or instigators are in the first category and they deserve starting points of six to seven years’ imprisonment.   Starting points of three to five years’ imprisonment are appropriate for those in category two, being those who are below the masterminds or instigators but are nevertheless crucial players.   Undoubtedly, you fall into category one.

[43]     Your offending occurred over a period of more than two years and involved no less than 70 separate importations with the packages posted regularly over this period.  This was one of the most significant importation enterprises to have come before the Courts.   The scale of the operation was huge and whatever the exact amount of pseudoephedrine involved, the consignments provided the potential to manufacture  large  quantities  of  methamphetamine.    The  offending  was  clearly

premeditated and it was a sophisticated operation.  A number of steps were taken to

6      R v Ho HC Auckland CRI-2005-092-000567, 12 April 2005.

avoid detection, such as crushing the pseudoephedrine tablets and mixing them into a paste and packaging them into containers to make it look like herbal products.  The packages were sent to a number of different addresses to enhance the likelihood that at least some would be delivered and, because of the frequency of the deliveries, multiple addresses  prevented suspicion  falling  on  the recipients.   You  also  sent packages to unwitting family members.  This was an abuse of trust and a cunning one, because family members are less likely to report suspicious behaviour to the Police or to seriously question the contents of the packages.

[44]     Offending on this scale is not adequately reflected in the maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment for each importation.   I consider this operation to be within the category of “the most serious of cases” which the Sentencing Act says must  receive the maximum  penalty.7     The Court of Appeal  has  said  that  when offending involves the importation of large quantities of pseudoephedrine capable of yielding millions of dollars worth of methamphetamine, the Court must have regard to the totality of the offending.8   If the totality of the offending means that a sentence beyond the eight year maximum is required, then it is permissible for a sentencing Court to impose cumulative sentences to reach the appropriate level.9  The Court said that  the  individual  sentences  imposed  are  less  important  than  ensuring  that  the overall sentence reflects the totality of the offending.10

[45]     The Court of Appeal also said that because pseudoephedrine is such a vital ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamine, the tariff decision in Fatu11 can provide useful guidance.12    If I look purely at how much methamphetamine could have  been  manufactured  from  the  pseudoephedrine  you  imported,  and  if  I was sentencing you on the basis that it was this amount of methamphetamine which was

imported or manufactured, your offending would fall within band four of Fatu and,

in my view, attract a starting point in the vicinity of 20 years’ imprisonment.

7        Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(c).

8        R v Xie, above n 1 at [16].

9 At [19].

10 At [38].

11       R v Fatu, above n 5.

12       R v Xie, above n 1 at [23].

[46]     I  consider  that  the  pseudoephedrine  offending  is  sufficiently  serious  to warrant  a  starting  point  beyond  the  eight  year  maximum.    While  the  amounts involved might be less than in some other cases,13 and they have been referred to by Mr Mabey, the fact that this was a sophisticated operation conducted over several years and involving at least 70 separate importations makes it, in my view, more serious.

[47]     Having regard to these factors and the comparable cases,14 I consider that the appropriate starting point for the pseudoephedrine offending is one of eight years’ imprisonment.

[48]     But the importation offending is not the only offending and it is clear that you were involved in stages of the methamphetamine distribution process beyond the mere importation of the precursor.   The methamphetamine offending itself is very serious and on a stand-alone basis might attract a starting point of around seven years’ imprisonment.  However, I need to have regard to the totality of the offending overall including the firearm charge.  On that basis, I consider an uplift to a starting point of 13 years’ imprisonment is appropriate to reflect all of your offending.

Adjusting the starting point

[49]     I then adjust the starting point to take account of aggravating or mitigating features which are personal to you.

[50]     You have a number of prior convictions and the Crown submits that an uplift is required to reflect this.  Your prior record reflects a variety of criminal offending including dishonesty and sexual offending,  but of particular note are  nine prior convictions for cannabis-related offending although I accept that the most recent of these was as long ago as 1993.  Nevertheless, to reflect the added need for personal

deterrence in the light of your significant criminal history I propose to uplift the

13       For example R v Xie [2008] NZCA 111.

14       R v Xie, ibid; R v Xie, above n 1; R v Ho, above n 6; R v Gui HC Auckland CRI-2011-404-

000267, 22 November 2011; R v Qiu CA202/06, 17 October 2006; R v Ye HC Auckland CRI-
2006-404-000175, 18 July 2006; R v Fung HC Auckland CRI-2009-092-4184, 10 July 2009.

sentence by three months which is really no more than a gesture given the total period involved in the starting point.

[51]     As to mitigating factors, Mr Read, although it has been noted that these do not hold as much sway in the context of drug offending,15   Mr Mabey has submitted on your behalf that since you have been remanded in custody you have used your undoubted intelligence and business acumen to pursue academic studies and take an active role in the production and management of the prison bakery.   He has also emphasised that you have acknowledged the harm caused by your offending and that

is a positive sign for your rehabilitation prospects.   I am prepared to allow you a discount of nine months on account of those factors.

[52]     The final consideration then is the effect of your guilty plea on an otherwise appropriate sentence of 12 and a half years’ imprisonment.  The Crown submits this was late and in the face of a strong case and I agree.  Consistently with the informal indication of 10-15 percent I gave prior to your plea, I permit you a discount of

18 months or around 12.5 percent.  That is consistent with the discount I will allow

Kahsharn Read who pleaded guilty at the same time.

[53]     These considerations lead to an end sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment.  The Crown has urged me to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of at least half of that sentence.   I consider that if you were to receive parole after serving only one third of the 11 year sentence, that period of time would not be enough to hold you accountable, denounce your conduct and to deter you and other offenders from this sort of behaviour.  I agree that a minimum period of imprisonment of approximately half the total end sentence should be imposed.

Sentence – Jade Brady

[54]     Ms Brady, you pleaded guilty following a sentence indication given by me on

30 April 2013.   The lead offence is the representative count of supplying methamphetamine and the starting point needs to be assessed against that.  The tariff

decision is R v Fatu in which the Court set out sentencing bands for supplying

15       Jarden v R [2008] NZSC 69, [2008] 3 NZLR 612 at [12].

methamphetamine.16   Band one relates to low level supply of less than five grams of methamphetamine and that in itself attracts starting points of two to four years’ imprisonment.   That underlines just how serious dealing in this drug is regarded. Band two is for the supply of commercial quantities of five to 250 grams and attracts starting points of three to nine years’ imprisonment.

[55]     In your case, the offending was spread over three months.   The evidence suggests that you were more than a mere functionary and street level dealer, but I do not necessarily consider you to be a “trusted lieutenant” of Mr Read and therefore at a higher level in the hierarchy.  But you played a pivotal role in the distribution of methamphetamine and it is reasonable to conclude that your dealing significantly exceeded five grams.

[56]     Your offending falls at the bottom of band two in Fatu and the appropriate starting point,17 in my view, is one of three and a half years’ imprisonment.

[57]     There are no personal aggravating factors justifying an uplift.

[58]     As to mitigating factors, I indicated a discount of six to nine months would be appropriate for your previous character if the most favourable view was taken, and a discount of up to a year might apply if you were assessed as posing a low risk of reoffending.

[59]     I have received and referred to a number of testimonials on your behalf which highlight a number of positive attributes about you.  You have attended the Bay of Plenty Addiction  Service  and  in  your  letter  to  me  you  tell  me  you  have  been attending narcotics anonymous with a degree of success.   I accept you are highly motivated to change but, in my view, until you complete an appropriate course of counselling and treatment to address your methamphetamine addiction, you will continue to represent at least a medium risk of reoffending.   A reduction of nine months imprisonment is the most that could be considered appropriate for personal

factors in these circumstances.

16       R v Fatu, above n 5.

17R v Paki-Edwards HC Auckland CRI-2008-092-17198, 4 February 2010; R v Manuel [2012] NZHC 264.

[60]     The final consideration is your guilty plea.  I said at the sentence indication hearing that a discount of around 20 percent would be appropriate and I allow such a reduction.

[61]   This gives an end sentence of just over two years and two months’ imprisonment.   That means I have no jurisdiction to impose a sentence of home detention.   Giving you the fullest credit I can to the change in attitude you have signalled, I would have been hesitant about imposing such a sentence anyway.  The report satisfies me that the best way for you to dis-associate yourself from your past and get access to the treatment you need is through a sentence of imprisonment.  I assume your supporters will be on hand to assist your reintegration into the community once you are paroled.  How soon you are deemed suitable for release, after you have served the minimum period of just under nine months, will depend at least in part on whether you have successfully completed the rehabilitative courses available to you.

Kahsharn Read - sentence

[62]     Ms Read, you pleaded guilty following a sentence indication given by me on

7 May 2013.  Your offending was limited to receiving nine importations and being wilfully blind as to their content.  The indicated starting point was one of three years and nine months’ imprisonment and there is no reason to depart from that.18

[63]     But there is evidence that satisfies me that you were acting to a degree under the influence of your father; you have no previous convictions and you are suffering from significantly debilitating medical conditions.  I take into account that you have two three year-old sons who rely upon you for care and support.  I intimated in the sentence indication that a discount of 18 months would be appropriate for these personal factors and I apply that discount, and I also apply a discount of 12.5 percent

or thereabouts for your guilty plea.

18       R v VM [2013] NZHC 837; R v Ho above n 6; R v Ha HC Auckland CRI-2009-004-4091, 20

November 2009; R v Wei HC Auckland CRI-2010-092-5861, 7 December 2010.

[64]   Adopting these discounts reduces the sentence to one of two years’ imprisonment which does engage my discretion to impose a sentence of home detention in your case.   That is recommended in the pre-sentence report.   It is accepted by the Crown that you are a suitable for such a sentence.

Result

[65]     The prisoners will all stand, please.

Gary Read:

(a)      On  each  of  the  70  counts  of  importing  pseudoephedrine  you  are sentenced  to  eight  years’ imprisonment, to  be served  concurrently with each other.  On each count, you shall serve a minimum period of five years and three months’ imprisonment.

(b)On the count of possession of methamphetamine for supply you are sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.  This sentence is to be served cumulatively on the sentence of eight years for the importation of pseudoephedrine.

(c)      On the count of possession of pseudoephedrine for supply you are sentenced to one year imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the other sentences.

(d)On the count of unlawful possession of a firearm, you are sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the other sentences.

(e)      On the count of participating in an organised criminal group you are sentenced to two  years’ imprisonment, which is also to be served concurrently with the other sentences.

[66]     This means your effective end sentence is one of eleven years imprisonment, of which you shall serve a minimum period of five years and three months’ imprisonment before being eligible for parole.

[67]     In view of your pleas and the sentences imposed, I now discharge you on counts 62 – 67, 72, 75, 77 and 78 in the indictment presented, and I discharge you on the summary charge of possession of an offensive weapon.  There will be an order for  destruction  of  the  drugs  and  other  exhibits  seized  as  set  out  in  the  exhibit schedule provided by counsel for the Crown and attached to a copy of these sentencing notes on the Court file.

Jade Brady

(a)       On the representative count of supplying methamphetamine you are

sentenced to two years and two months’ imprisonment.

(b)      On the count of possession of methamphetamine for supply you are

sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment.

(c)       On  each  of  the  counts  of  possession  of  BZP  and  possession  of cannabis for supply you are sentenced to one year’s imprisonment.

(d)      On the count of possession of a restricted weapon you are sentenced

to six months’ imprisonment.

(e)       On the count of possession of LSD you are sentenced to three months’

imprisonment.

(f)       On the count of being a member of an organised criminal group you are sentenced to one year’s imprisonment.

[68]     All terms are to be served concurrently, meaning the effective end sentence is one of two years and two months’ imprisonment. The summary charge of possession of a restricted weapon is withdrawn by the Crown, but there will be an order for destruction of the weapon.

Kahsharn Read:

[69]     On each the nine counts of importation of pseudoephedrine you are sentenced

concurrently to 10 months’ home detention, with the following conditions:

(a)       Upon  release  from  Court  today,  you  are  to  travel  directly  to

400 Fraser St, Tauranga and await the arrival of a probation officer.

(b)You shall co-operate with the fitting and maintenance of an electronic monitoring device when required, and your period of home detention will begin on Monday 12 August 2013 at a time to be determined by a probation officer.  You will be remanded on bail on the same terms as previously existed until then.

(c)      You are to reside at 400 Fraser St for the duration of the sentence of home detention.

(d)You  are  ordered  to  attend  and  complete  any  such  counselling, programme   or   treatment   to   address   your   identified   offending behaviour as directed by your probation officer and to the satisfaction of the probation officer and the programme provider.

(e)      You   are   permitted   to   undertake   and   attend   such   parental responsibilities as directed and approved by your probation officer.

(f)      You are not to purchase, possess or consume alcohol or illicit drugs for the duration of your sentence of home detention.

[70]     Please all stand down.

................................................

Toogood J