R v Rimene HC Whangarei CRI 2005-029-001271

[2007] NZHC 1812

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI 2005-029-001271

THE QUEEN

v

CLAYTON RIMENE

Appearances: P J Magee for the Crown

J Watson for the Prisoner

Judgment:      8 June 2007

SENTENCING NOTES OF PRIESTLEY J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitors Whangarei

J Watson, P O Box 502, Whangarei

R V RIMENE HC WHA CRI 2005-029-001271  8 June 2007

[1]      Earlier this morning the prisoner, who faced nine counts under the Misuse of Drugs Act, pleaded guilty to two counts of supplying a Class A drug methamphetamine.  The first supply was on 11 November 2005 and the second eight days later, both at Kaitaia.

[2]      These charges are essentially in the nature of wrapping up charges.   I note that the prisoner has already been sentenced in respect of similar offending to a term of four years imprisonment by Venning J in this Court on 27 October 2006.

[3]      The facts are similar to some of the matters before Venning J.   On both occasions the prisoner acted as a facilitator in arranging for a drug supplier to supply methamphetamine to two special duties police officers.  The first of the two supplies involved 5 grams  of  methamphetamine,  in respect  of  which  for  his  trouble  the prisoner received $250.  The second supply, in respect of which the agreed amount was $750, involved a 1.1 gram bag of methamphetamine.

[4]      In terms of the Court of Appeal tariff case of R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 I am of the view that this would come on top of the first band and would normally attract a start point of four years imprisonment. The aggravating features identified by Venning J, including the prisoner’s prior drug offending, would, in my judgment, justify that start point.

[5]      Giving to the prisoner credit for his guilty plea, an appropriate end sentence in respect of both charges, to be served concurrently, would be three years imprisonment.

[6]      Mr Magee has taken the responsible position that had these charges been before Venning J in October it is unlikely the end sentence would have been particularly different.   The offending is similar in kind, although in terms of the totality principle a small uplift might have been justified.  Whether that would have taken place, and if so how much are problematic.

[7]      Counsel are agreed that the appropriate way of dealing with this is to impose a term of imprisonment, which effectively is to be served concurrently with the sentences imposed by Venning J on 27 October.

[8]      Thus I sentence, on both the counts, the prisoner to a term of three years imprisonment.   Those terms of imprisonment are to be served concurrently and concurrently with the sentences imposed on 27 October 2006.

[9]      Counsel  inform  me,  as  has  the  prisoner,  that  in  respect  of  Venning  J’s sentences he is eligible for parole very shortly, on 19 June.  This is because in terms of s 90 of the Parole Act the prisoner was incarcerated on remand from 23 November

2005.  As best as I can gauge it, he has similarly been on remand from that date for the current charges.  Thus I would expect that the prisoner is similarly eligible for parole in respect of the sentence I have just imposed on him in 11 days time.

[10]     Should this assessment of the situation be erroneous, leave is reserved to the Crown  and  prisoner  to  re-apply.    I express  the  Court’s  clear  intention  that  the sentences I impose today are to be treated identically in terms of parole eligibility with the sentences imposed on him by Venning J on 27 October.

...........................................… Priestley J