R v Rose
[2013] NZHC 1380
•11 June 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON REGISTRY
CRI-2012-054-860 [2013] NZHC 1380
THE QUEEN
v
JOLENE ROSE
Hearing: 11 June 2013
(Heard at Wellington)
Counsel: D J Flinn for the Crown
P Knowlsey for Ms Rose
Sentence: 11 June 2013
SENTENCING NOTES OF GODDARD J
Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Palmerston North
Counsel: P Knowsley, PO Box 5289, Wellington 6145
R v ROSE [2013] NZHC 1380 [11 June 2013]
[1] Joelene Rose you appear for sentence on 23 charges arising from a major methamphetamine dealing operation conducted by you over a considerable period of time. You were found guilty by a jury on 22 of those charges and you pleaded guilty to one charge part way through the trial. The 23 counts comprised a representative charge of engaging in an on-going enterprise of selling methamphetamine over the period 6 August 2008 to 20 March 2012 (that is, a period of more than three and a half years); possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply on or before
20 March 2012 (3.5 grams); possession of cannabis for the purpose of supply on or before 20 March 2012 (5 ounces); and 20 charges of unlawful possession of firearms, restricted weapons and ammunition located at your property. Some of those firearms were loaded.
Offence Section Maximum penalty Result
Misuse of
Supplying methamphetamine
Possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of supply
Possession of
Drugs Act
1975, s 6(1)(c) and s 66 Crimes Act 1961
Misuse of
Drugs Act
1975, s 6(1)(f) and (c) Misuse of
Life imprisonment Guilty
Life imprisonment Guilty
cannabis for the purposes of supply
Unlawful possession of a firearm x 15
Unlawful possession of a restricted weapon x
1
Unlawful possession of ammunition x 3
Drugs Act
1975, 6(1)(f)
and (e)
Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b)
Arms Act 1983, S 45(1)(b)
Arms Act 1983, S 45(1)(b)
8 years maximum
imprisonment
4 years maximum imprisonment or $5000 fine
4 years maximum imprisonment or $5000 fine
4 years maximum imprisonment or $5000 fine
Guilty Guilty Guilty
Guilty
Circumstances of the offending
[2] On 20 March 2012, police executed a search warrant at your home, situated about three kilometres out of Woodville in a quiet rural environment. While the house appeared to be an ordinary, quite non-descript dwelling from the outside, on
closer examination it was highly secured in a manner designed to protect and facilitate your drug dealing operation. Across the entrance to the driveway was a light beam that sounded a buzzer in the master bedroom. Affixed to the outside of the front of the house was a CCTV camera. Three monitors inside the house were connected to that CCTV camera. One was in the master bedroom on the wall opposite the bed. Another was in the dining/family room and yet another was in the lounge. In the dining/family room there was also a police scanner which was turned on. Beside this scanner was a list of registration numbers for unmarked police vehicles in the Palmerston North, Fielding and Dannevirke districts.
[3] Police also found tick lists in your handwriting and other cryptic lists in some sort of coded form. These cryptic lists, led to the discovery of stashes of huge amounts of cash in and around the property, some of it buried in the garden. In total, some $764,000 in cash was found at the property, carefully hidden, in bundles comprising notes of mainly large denomination.
[4] Also found in the house were thousands of unused snaplock bags of various sizes and a large number of scales of various varieties, some with traces of methamphetamine on them. In the master bedroom, on your side of the bed, there were several small sets of electronic scales, some with methamphetamine traces on them. Also on your side of the master bedroom, in the hood of a black satin clock, which one assumes you wore over your dominatrix outfits, was a loaded revolver. A loaded revolver was also within reach on Mr Murray’s side of the master bedroom. Other weapons found in and around the property were a pistol, a semi-automatic rifle, two stun guns, a shotgun, various other rifles, a pen pistol (in your hobby shed) and various ammunition. I am prepared to accept that some of these firearms may have been Mr Murray’s for hunting or were some sort of collector’s items, but I am satisfied that you were aware of the presence of these firearms, and I am satisfied that, at least the loaded revolver in the hood of your cloak and the pen pistol in your hobby shed, were your personal weapons, that you had them at the ready, and that you were prepared to use them. The combination of class A drugs, together with an extraordinarily large amount of cash and the presence of loaded firearms is an extremely serious matter.
[5] Some small amounts of methamphetamine (a total of 3.5 grams) were also found in the house and these formed the basis for count 2 in the indictment. It seems you did not stock-pile any quantity of the drug at your property and that it was sourced, processed (weighed and bagged) and on-sold by you in very quick turnaround times. The speed of your transactions is patently clear from your text messaging. Those messages, which covered a four month period, reveal a huge amount of activity and energy being expended by you in arranging deals and in the number of assignations you arranged with various people at various locations around the countryside at all hours of the day and night. Often these assignations were arranged at short notice and there seems always to have been urgency. The text messages make it clear that you were able to source in methamphetamine quite readily when orders were received, although the availability of amount varied and the prices obviously fluctuated from time to time.
[6] That property in rural Woodville was your base. You referred to it in a text message to Mr Murray as the ‘perfect’ location when you found it. You entered into a rent to purchase agreement. Unremarkable and relatively isolated, it had the added advantage, as you also mentioned, of being only three kilometres from State Highway 2 and not far from the Manawatu Gorge. Its location enabled you to be on State Highway 2 quickly and at short notice.
[7] The content of your text messaging and other evidence at trial and in post conviction material gives every indication that you are an astute and competent business woman. The text schedule reflects the degree of organisation, command and control you had over your methamphetamine supply business. The extent of your network, as revealed in that text messaging, was considerable. The vast bulk of the text messages in the schedule (2,742 of the 2,837 messages) are attributable to you. The language in those messages is entirely consistent with your role as the principal in your enterprise and you were certainly the primary offender, as between yourself and Mr Murray. This is exemplified in your frequent use of the first person instead of “we”, as the following text messages indicate:
I had just restocked with more expensive ink so put this lot on the books, which is part of the reason I want it fast moving.
...
If only I had that luxury, I just had over 48 hours 2 make over 120k but did it
... just.
[8] In terms of your role, the evidence establishes that you were at or near the top of the supply chain of your network. You were able to source and supply an enormous amount of methamphetamine over a considerable period of time for a sizeable profit. On one occasion you were able to make $120,000 in just over
48 hours, as the text I have just quoted from reveals. For reasons that I gave in my Minute of 6 June 2013, I am satisfied that you routinely sold methamphetamine in ounces. These facts are all consistent with you being a high level supplier, close to a manufacturing source or sources.
[9] Because of the extreme lengths to which you and those of your ilk go in order to conceal your criminal activities by the use of code and other covert means, it is impossible to state categorically the exact extent of your network or to identify a particular hierarchy. It is sufficient to say that, on the evidence, you can safely be described as a major distributor with ready access to sources and with an established network to whom you were regularly supplying for on-sale and that you were routinely supplying in ounces unless there was an availability crisis.
[10] As also determined by me in my Minute of 6 June 2013, I am satisfied that the amount of methamphetamine supplied by you has been established as at least
8.44 kilograms. Adopting that figure was putting the most favourable light on the evidence.
[11] I am also satisfied that, on the evidence, the total revenue from your sales of methamphetamine was at least $4,971,955.00. Again that was a conservative figure and the most favourable to you.
[12] That makes your methamphetamine dealing operation one of the most substantial to have come before the Courts. Mr Flinn’s submission was that it was the most serious case of methamphetamine supply in the history of New Zealand jurisprudence.
[13] In terms of the timeframe specified in count 1 as the period during which your offending occurred, the start date was pegged to the first WINZ payment you received after your release from prison in 2008, having served a sentence of imprisonment for possession of methamphetamine for supply; possession of cannabis for sale; and possession of precursors with the intention that they be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
[14] The relevant facts were that police executed a search warrant at your home and found a closed circuit video surveillance system set up and an operational police scanner set to the local police frequency. On your person was a tin containing
12 small snaplock bags containing methamphetamine and two bags with traces of methamphetamine. In your handbag was a further bag containing methamphetamine. A total of 7.146 grams was found, 6.2 grams with a purety of 76 or 77 per cent. There was also an amount of cash found and digital scales. In your lounge was a box containing 31 packs of Codral products containing pseudoephedrine and there was also paraphernalia associated with methamphetamine use. The finding of the pseudoephedrine in your possession at that time indicates that you were linked to or actually involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine as well as its distribution. Also found during that particular raid was a considerable quantity of high quality cannabis head and cannabis leaf material with scales. You pleaded not guilty and were convicted by a jury following trial.
[15] A sentence of four years and three months was imposed by McKenzie J on
18 August 2006. You were on parole for those offences and subject to pre-release conditions until July 2009, thus, for nearly a year after the commencement of the timeframe specified in count 1. It is an aggravating factor personal to you if your offending did commence while you were still on parole for similar offending. Your counsel contests the timeframe on your behalf, although not on the basis of any evidence. There is simply no way of telling from the jury’s verdict whether they accepted you were dealing in methamphetamine for the entire period specified, or for any lesser period.
[16] The Crown has submitted that even if you were not offending for the entire period and whilst on parole, there would be a resultant increase in your culpability
because your drug dealing activities would necessarily have been carried out in a more concentrated way to produce the same amount of profits within a lesser timeframe. There is some force in that submission. I think in the end that the fairest approach to you is to regard the competing assertions as tending to cancel each other out. What your reoffending, after serving a term of imprisonment for similar offending does demonstrate is that you learned nothing from your previous experience of imprisonment.
[17] In terms of relativity between you and Mr Murray, I am satisfied Mr Murray was far less involved in the operation than you. His involvement spanned not only a lesser period of time but was less significant. On the evidence, it appears to have commenced from about the time he received a text message from you on
6 November 2010 offering him “the chance to make quik buck”. This factor is also important in indicating that you were the initiator of his involvement in your methamphetamine dealing. Mr Murray apparently got to know you as one of your methamphetamine customers. You and he became an ‘item’ and he moved into your property at Hope Road, Woodville in late 2010, probably in December. He acted as your assistant in your drug dealing operation, facilitating contact with his friends so you could sell to them, obviously undertaking some selling himself and carrying out various other tasks for you, such as purchasing vehicles and furniture, inferentially setting up the security systems, supervising the building of the garage and generally enabling you to carry out your drug dealing activities with his support.
[18] Your network included a number of people. It is an open inference that one of the witnesses whom you called on your behalf at trial was working for you. Her evidence was designed to establish that you had a legitimate source of income from your arts and crafts work (placards and cards). However, under cross-examination about the purpose of the number of assignations she had with you (as revealed by your text messaging) at all hours and in locations requiring her to drive for hours to meet you, those claims essentially evaporated. At best she could only establish that about $500 worth of business was achieved from the sales of these arts and crafts works through car boot sales and the like. The Crown’s cross-examination reached a point where I had to give your witness a warning in the absence of the jury because she came very close to placing herself in jeopardy.
[19] It is also an open inference that another of the witnesses called on your behalf, a young woman who told the Court she assisted you with your prostitution work as a dominatrix because she had debts she could not pay, had in fact incurred those debts with you. Whilst she said they were gambling debts it was open to the jury to infer otherwise. She was granted name suppression by me on application of the Crown Solicitor.
Circumstances of the offender
[20] In terms of your personal circumstances you are a 37 year old mother of three children. The eldest, your 18 year old son was living with you at the property at Hope Road, Woodville whilst you were carrying out your drug dealing activities from that property. During the trial there was evidence that a vehicle purchased by Mr Murray on your behalf using cash in large denominations was initially put into your (then) 17 year old son’s name, obviously as a ‘laundering’ exercise and to keep the police spotlight away from yourself.
[21] Your two younger children live with their father in New Plymouth. He has had custody of them for some years and is clearly a very good and loving father to them. He has contributed in a positive way to your probation report and has separately written a letter to the Court on your behalf. He is clearly a very decent man. It is fortunate that your children have him to care for them.
[22] He and your father both describe you as a good mother and speak of your children’s great love for you. The children understandably are said to be “gutted” by your impending prison sentence. It is a tragedy for the children that they must also be victims of your offending and are having to suffer further as a result of your criminal conduct.
[23] Your father says that your kids “adore” you and that their love will play a significant role in motivating you to achieve and maintain long-term drug abstinence. It is to be hoped this will be so, in the long-term, for their sake.
[24] You say you began using methamphetamine about 10 years ago and your continued use and dependence on the drug has completely destabilised your life. It
is clear that you have been a user and indeed you breached your bail conditions whilst on remand for this offending by being tested positive for the drug.
[25] You continue to deny the extent of your involvement in your offending and at trial you sought to blame Mr Murray as a violent and dangerous drug dealer and the principal offender. For reasons I have given, that is not supported by the evidence. You went to trial on all charges, as was your right but you can receive no discount in mitigation of sentence for having done so. Your plea of guilty to count 3, the charge of possession of 5 ounces of cannabis for supply cannot receive any credit. The plea was offered belatedly on day 7 of trial and so that your counsel could suggest to the jury that you were only a cannabis dealer and a methamphetamine user, but not a methamphetamine dealer. The jury did not accept that.
[26] You have written a letter of contrition to the Court which I have now read and
I accept that for what it is worth.
[27] Mr Knowsley referred to your instruction that you now wish to “disgorge” yourself of your “ill-gotten gains”. Also that you wish to voluntarily forfeit the Holden Commodore in your ownership at the time of your arrest. For that voluntary forfeiture Mr Knowsley seeks a discount in the range of 10 per cent as appropriate to reflect this “disgorgement”.
Principles and Purposes of Sentencing
[28] In sentencing you today, I have to first determine what is called the starting point sentence. That is the sentence that is appropriate having regard to the nature of your offending or what you did.
[29] I then have to consider aggravating or mitigating factors personal to you which might increase or decrease your sentence from the starting point.
[30] Finally, I have to take into account your guilty plea on the charge of possession of cannabis for the purposes of supply, as the last step in this sentencing process.
[31] Section 7 of the Sentencing Act sets out the purposes of sentencing. The purposes that are particularly relevant to your sentencing are:
(a) to hold you accountable for harm done to the community by your offending;
(b)to promote in you a sense of responsibility for, and an acknowledgment of, that harm;
(c) to denounce the conduct in which you were involved;
(d)to deter you and others from committing the same or a similar offence; and
(e) to protect the community from you.
[32] I must also have regard to the principles of sentencing. The principles of sentencing that are particularly relevant to your sentencing are:
(a) the need to take into account the gravity of your offending, including your role and the degree to which you are culpable for that offending;
(b)the need to take into account the seriousness of this type of offence in comparison with other types of offences, as indicated by the maximum penalties prescribed for the offences;
(c) the need to impose the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence if the offending is within the most serious cases for which that penalty is prescribed;
(d)the need to take into account the general desirability of appropriate sentencing levels and other means of dealing with offenders in respect of similar offenders committing similar offences in similar circumstances.
[33] I turn now to the starting point.
Starting point
[34] The Court of Appeal decision R v Fatu1 provides guidance for the task of setting the starting point for methamphetamine offending. At the outset I refer to and acknowledge what the Court said in Fatu in regard to methamphetamine offending:2
Methamphetamine abuse can fairly be characterised as the most serious drug problem the country faces at present. The various ways in which the drug threatens the community are well-known. Methamphetamine is a particularly destructive drug for users; it is highly addictive with profound mental and physical side-effects. It induces aggressive and irrational behaviour, and is regularly responsible for other offending involving extreme violence, a phenomenon not commonly associated with other drugs. It has created a thriving industry, in which organised crime is heavily involved at all levels.
… if it is appropriate to draw any distinction between Class A drugs, methamphetamine can fairly lay claim to a place in the most serious category.
[35] This statement and the fact that the Legislature has set the maximum penalty possible under our law, of life imprisonment, for Class A drug dealing, indicates the abhorrence with which the criminal activities in which you have involved yourself are viewed. You should be aware that life imprisonment has in fact been imposed on Class A drug offenders in this country on five separate occasions.
[36] The Crown has called for the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment in your case. Mr Knowsley, on your behalf has submitted that a starting point of
16 years and an end point of 13 or 14 years is appropriate.
[37] Both the Crown and your counsel agree that your offending falls within band
4 of the bands outlined in Fatu, which it clearly does. Methamphetamine offending will fall within band 4 if it involves the supply of large commercial quantities, characterised as being 500 grams or more. This level of offending attracts a starting
point of between ten years to life imprisonment.
1 R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72, (2005) 22 CRNZ 410.
2 At [11].
[38] The Crown urges me to treat your offending as comparable to importing or manufacturing methamphetamine because of the amounts involved. The rationale in Fatu is that manufacturers and importers are generally more culpable than suppliers because it is they who are responsible for bringing the drugs in question into circulation. The application of this in your case is unnecessary because the amount you supplied is so large that it justifies a significant increase in the starting point. In any event, the views of the Courts increasingly are that without suppliers there would be no manufacturers.
[39] The following factors are relevant in determining the starting point for supply:
(a) The large quantity of methamphetamine involved.
(b)Your offending took place for an extended period at the greatest, three years seven months. Your counsel contends for a lesser period.
(c) The level of premeditation and planning for this operation. You deliberately chose a house in a secluded area and set about having it equipped with security monitors, a light beam alarm, a police scanner and a number of weapons. This was a well planned and organised operation.
(d)You were at or near the top of the supply chain in your dealing enterprise. You had a substantial network and were clearly close to a source or sources of the drug.
(e) Most importantly, you were the principal offender. This was your methamphetamine dealing operation and you can be described as a major distributor. You masterminded it and were the hands-on operator. The general approach outlined in R v Fatu is that those whose role is more significant can expect starting point sentences
towards the higher end of the band.3
3 R v Fatu, above n 1, at [31].
[40] In having regard to broadly comparable cases I am mindful that the utility of the comparative process diminishes once the quantities involved fall into large or extremely large categories.4 The amounts involved here are unprecedented in supply cases. Therefore a comparison of amounts involved in other cases cannot be done as some form of mathematical exercise.5
[41] I have reviewed a number of cases involving methamphetamine supply. The most useful of these cases are:
(a) Nathan v R:6 Mr Nathan set up a methamphetamine dealing operation within prison that involved the supply of 1.8 kilograms. Like you, Mr Nathan was at the hub of his operation. He used his network of personal relationships to bring the people involved together and he controlled all of the money. Mr Nathan received a provisional starting point of 16 years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal commented that principals who are responsible for supplying around 2 kilograms will ordinarily earn a starting point of 16 years. As you are aware, the amount of methamphetamine involved in your case is significantly higher than 2 kilograms.
(b)R v Matthews:7 Mr Mathews was the leader of a large methamphetamine network who was responsible for arranging the supply of precursors, arranging the manufacture of methamphetamine, and supplying the produced methamphetamine. His operation involved the supply of between 1 and 1.6 kilograms of methamphetamine and produced a turnover of $700,000 in less than
12 months. He received a starting point of 15 years imprisonment. Although Mr Matthews was also manufacturing yours was a
significantly larger operation.
4 R v Zhou HC Auckland CRI-2006-019-8458, 10 March 2009 at [21].
5 R v Huang HC Auckland CRI-2006-019-8458, 8 May 2009 at [7].
6 R v Nathan [2011] NZCA 284.
7 R v Mathews [2012] NZHC 3545.
(c) R v Huang:8 Mr Wei was caught in possession of 4.3 kilograms of methamphetamine and was convicted of supplying a further 1 kilogram of methamphetamine. Mr Wei operated within a framework involving a drug lord in China and another supplier in Auckland. Mr Wei was more than just a middle man. He was partly responsible for initiating the New Zealand operation and had a pivotal and controlling position in his own separate dealing operation. The sentencing Judge imposed a starting point of 20 years.
[42] In light of those cases I have determined that a provisional starting point of
18 years imprisonment appropriately reflects the quantity involved, the duration of your offending, your position as a major distributor in the supply chain and your primary role in this offending.
[43] To this must be added an appropriate uplift to reflect your firearm offending. Where firearms offending is connected to drug offending the preferred approach is to reflect the additional offending by way of an uplift rather than by imposing a cumulative sentence.9 It is a seriously aggravating factor that you were found in unlawful possession of a large number of firearms, some loaded. These firearms were situated deliberately throughout the house and the property so that they could
be easily accessed.
[44] The Court of Appeal in R v Richardson referred to “loaded firearms” as being “anathema within our community”.10 The Court said that every Court has an obligation to impose sentences which clearly and properly express society’s condemnation of unlawful possession of such firearms because of their potential for danger. In R v Faifua the Court of Appeal referred to “the presence of a firearm” as
one of the most serious aggravating features that can be found in drug cases”.11
8 R v Huang, above n 5.
9 R v Maclean [2009] NZCA 465 at [19].
10 R v Richardson CA450/02, 25 March 2003 at [33].
11 R v Faifua CA287/05, 27 March 2006 at [26].
[45] On the basis of these observations, I am satisfied that an uplift of one year is appropriate to reflect your firearms offending. But for the totality principle this uplift would have been more significant, given the number of weapons involved.
[46] I therefore set the starting point for your supply offending at 19 years.
Aggravating and mitigating factors
[47] I turn now to your personal circumstances. Your previous convictions are a significant aggravating factor. You have accumulated 10 convictions in the 12 year period from October 1993 to August 2006, including the convictions for possession of methamphetamine for supply, possession of precursors for methamphetamine manufacture and possession of cannabis for supply. It appears that the sentence of four years and three months for this drug offending did not deter you in the slightest. As I observed in my Minute of 6 June 2013 you appear to be a determined recidivist. In that sense you are rightly to be characterised as a menace to society, which deserves protection from you.
[48] If your offending did begin on parole, that would also be an aggravating factor but I have chosen not to take that into account in any uplift.
[49] In your favour you have volunteered to forfeit the proceeds of your offending. Although these proceeds would have been forfeited anyway, this gesture still warrants a modest reduction in your sentence.
[50] Despite your letter and Mr Knowsley’s submissions to the contrary I am not, as I have already indicated, satisfied that you are remorseful for your offending. Realistically, the extent of your remorse is limited to the fact that you were caught. You denied the offending throughout the trial and continued to deny your involvement and knowledge of the extent of the operation in your pre-sentence report although you have since written that letter to me apologising and seeking leniency. You continued to blame Mr Murray during your pre-sentence interview and as I said, your latest offending is recidivist.
[51] I have decided that an uplift of one year is required to reflect all of your personal circumstances.
End sentence
[52] This takes your end sentence for the lead offence to 20 years imprisonment.
Other offending
[53] I must also sentence you for possession of cannabis for the purpose of supply and possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply. I will start with the cannabis. The police discovered five ounces of cannabis.
[54] For this I sentence you to one year and six months imprisonment concurrent on your sentence for the lead offence of supply of methamphetamine.
[55] I turn then to possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply. The police discovered a total of 3.5 grams of methamphetamine in your house. For this I sentence you to four years imprisonment concurrent on your sentence for the lead offence of supply of methamphetamine.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[56] The non-parole period of a long-term determinate sentence is one-third of the length of the sentence as Mr Knowsley has said. The Court of Appeal has commented that in cases of very serious drug offending it will be almost invariable that the criteria for a minimum term will be met.12 In your case, you would be eligible for parole after 6 years and eight months imprisonment. I am satisfied that this period of imprisonment is insufficient to hold you accountable for the harm to
the community of your offending, the vital need to denounce your conduct and the importance of deterring you and others from committing the same or similar offences. There is also the need to protect society from you, given your
demonstrated recidivism.
12 R v Fleming [2011] NZCA 646.
[57] The maximum minimum period I can impose is 10 years imprisonment or two thirds of your final sentence, whichever is the lesser. I have determined that the seriousness of your offending justifies the imposition of a minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years.
Conclusion
[58] I sentence you to 20 years imprisonment on the lead charge of supply of methamphetamine, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years. I also sentence you to:
(a) One year and six months imprisonment for possession of cannabis for the purpose of supply, to be served concurrently with your sentence for the lead offence; and
(b)Four years imprisonment for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply, also to be served concurrently with your sentence for supply for the lead offence.
Forfeiture order
[59] There will be an order for forfeiture of $764,830 in cash found at Hope Road, Woodville pursuant to s 32(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Addendum
[60] Ms Rose there are two matters we need to tidy up which I think Mr Knowsley has explained to you.
[61] The first is that I need to impose a discrete, that is separate sentence, concurrent sentence, in relation to the firearms charges, although they were subsumed within the 20 year sentence by way of an uplift.
[62] So on those charges, 20 charges of unlawful possession of firearms, I uplifted the overall starting point by one year to reflect those charges on the lead offence but I must also impose a discrete sentence. I therefore sentence you to two years
imprisonment to be served concurrently with your sentence for the lead charge of supply of methamphetamine.
[63] There is also the charge of what is generally referred to as benefit fraud to which you have pleaded guilty. I convict you and sentence you to six months imprisonment to be served concurrently with the sentence of 20 years for the lead
offence of methamphetamine supply.
Goddard J
3
4
0