R v Smith - [2018] NZHC 1763

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-044-004279 [2018] NZHC 1763

THE QUEEN

v

ARNA IWI ODETTE SMITH

Hearing: 17 July 2018

Counsel:

FMT Culliney for Crown MP Hislop for Defendant

Judgment:

17 July 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland. MP Hislop, Auckland.

R v SMITH [2018] NZHC 1763 [17 July 2018]

Introduction

[1] Ms Smith, you appear for sentence on seven charges:

(a)Six of possessing methamphetamine for supply.

(b)One representative charge of supplying methamphetamine.

As you will have been told, life imprisonment is the maximum penalty for each.

Facts

[2] On 12 June 2016, Police seized 501 kilograms of methamphetamine in Northland. Related investigations uncovered your offending:

(a)On six occasions between 30 September and 9 November 2016, you possessed methamphetamine. On each, the amount ranged between 14 grams and 84 grams. In total, you possessed 252 grams over this period.

(b)Between 30 September and 15 December 2016, you sold all 252 grams of the drug to others. You would then pay your supplier, Mr X. You said you paid him between $8,000 and $9,000 per ounce, albeit price varied. You acknowledged to Police you made “some money” from drug dealing.

[3] In his written submissions your lawyer, Mr Hislop, says you used some of the methamphetamine, and so did not supply it all. However, this submission is directly contrary to the summary of facts, which you agreed was correct when you pleaded guilty.1

[4] In summary, you possessed and dealt just over a quarter of a kilogram of methamphetamine in the last quarter of 2016.

1 The last page of the summary records, “Between 30 September 2016 and 15 December 2016 the defendant supplied a total of 252 grams of methamphetamine to persons unknown”.

Starting point

[5] The prosecution and Mr Hislop agree your offending attracts a starting point of between seven and a half to eight years’ imprisonment.2 I adopt a starting point at the lower end of this range—seven and a half years—for two reasons. First, you were a street dealer, or acting at a level broadly in the position of a street dealer. Second, this starting point better respects that adopted in relation to your co-offenders. For example, a starting point of 12 and a half years’ imprisonment was adopted in relation to Mr X, your supplier.3 He supplied much more methamphetamine than you.

[6] You are not a first offender, but your criminal record is irrelevant today. Nothing you have done previously aggravates your offending.

Mitigating factors?

[7] You are still quite young—29. You told the pre-sentence report writer you sold these drugs to put food on the table for your children. If true, this is not mitigating. Your children were entitled to better. That said, your own mother was, according to you, “into drugs” and a poor role model. You describe your dad as loving, but a “stoner”.

[8] You describe using methamphetamine at least four or five times…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2018] NZHC 1763
Case: [2018] NZHC 1763
Decision Date: 17 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Arna Iwi Odette Smith, the defendant was convicted of possessing and supplying methamphetamine, with the maximum penalty being life imprisonment for each charge. The case was heard and decided by the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, on 17 July 2018. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court began with determining the starting point for the sentence, which was set at the lower end of the range of seven and a half to eight years' imprisonment, due to the defendant being a street dealer and the need to respect the starting points adopted for co-offenders. The court then considered the mitigating factors, including the defendant's young age, drug problem, efforts towards rehabilitation, and remorse. The court found that the defendant's rehabilitative efforts and early attempts at reform warranted a discount of 10%, while the impact on the defendant's family warranted a 5% discount. The court also granted a 15% discount for the defendant's guilty pleas, considering the totality of the circumstances.

After applying the various discounts, the court determined the defendant's sentence to be five years and five months' imprisonment, without a minimum period of imprisonment. The court left the decision on parole to the Parole Board, as it believed that leaving the matter open would be better for the defendant, her young family, and the need for general deterrence.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Arna Iwi Odette Smith to five years and five months' imprisonment for her involvement in the possession and supply of methamphetamine, taking into account the mitigating factors and the defendant's efforts towards rehabilitation and reform.

Orders