R v Snowden - [2017] NZHC 1291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2015-088-003515 [2017] NZHC 1291

THE QUEEN

v

TAWAITI SNOWDEN

Hearing: 7 June 2017

Appearances:

N Dore for the Crown
K Ellis for the Defendant

Sentence:

7 June 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Whangarei
Kelly Ellis, Barrister, Whangarei

R v TAWAITI SNOWDEN [2017] NZHC 1291 [7 June 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Snowden, you have pleaded guilty to 22 charges. Eleven relate to supplying the class A drug methamphetamine, four relate to offering to supply methamphetamine, four relate to possession of methamphetamine for supply and the remaining three relate to conspiracy to supply methamphetamine.

[2] The maximum sentence for these charges is life imprisonment, except for the conspiracy charges, for which the maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.

Facts

[3] The charges arose as a consequence of the police investigation referred to as “Operation Atlas”. This operation targeted the members of the Head Hunters motorcycle gang, as well as their associates, to investigate their manufacture and distribution of drugs in the Northland area.

[4] The Police obtained warrants authorising them to intercept cellphone conversations and text messages. The evidence for the charges you have pleaded guilty to was obtained from intercepted conversations and text messages. You were identified as an associate of the Northland Head Hunters and your role was primarily to sell methamphetamine at a street level. You received a profit from selling it. You operated independently from the syndicate identified in Operation Atlas, but you liaised with some of the individuals who were directly involved in the Head Hunters operation, and you would support one another in the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine in the local area.

[5] The total amount of methamphetamine offered, supplied or in your possession amounted to at least 63.3 grams.

Purposes and principles of sentencing

[6] In sentencing you today, I take into consideration the purposes and principles of sentencing. These are holding you accountable for what you have done, denouncing your conduct and deterring you, promoting a sense of responsibility,

protecting the community, and promoting your rehabilitation and reintegration. I must also impose the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances.

[7] I must also apply the following principles of sentencing, namely, recognising the gravity and seriousness of your offending, and ensuring consistency with appropriate sentencing levels.

Personal circumstances

[8] You are 27 years’ old. Prior to your offending, you were living in Whangarei with your young son and daughter, both of whom lived with you after you separated from their mother. Your children now live with your father.

[9] You have previously worked in the scaffolding industry and hope to re-enter that field after retraining and certifying.

[10] You are a drug user, which you attribute to the loss of three of your brothers. You blame your drug use on your inability to deal with your grief.

[11] The factors that contributed to your offending have been identified as being your drug use, your lifestyle and attitudes towards…

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 Snowden

Details

AGLC: R v Snowden [2017] NZHC 1291
Case: [2017] NZHC 1291
Decision Date: 7 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Tawaiti Snowden, was convicted on 22 charges related to the supply, offering to supply, possession for supply, and conspiracy to supply methamphetamine. The case was heard by Hinton J in the High Court of New Zealand, Whangarei Registry. Snowden pleaded guilty to all charges, which arose from the police investigation "Operation Atlas" targeting the Head Hunters motorcycle gang. Snowden, an associate of the gang, operated as a street-level dealer and was involved with individuals from the gang in the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine in the Northland area.

The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for Snowden, considering the purposes and principles of sentencing, including accountability, denunciation, deterrence, responsibility, community protection, and rehabilitation. The court also had to determine the starting point for sentencing, taking into account the amount of methamphetamine involved, the commercial nature of the offending, and the seriousness of the drug. Additionally, the court needed to consider aggravating and mitigating factors, such as Snowden's lack of previous convictions, his remorse, and his evidentiary concessions.

Hinton J sentenced Snowden to three years and three months' imprisonment for the charges of offering to supply, supplying, conspiracy to supply, and possession for supply of methamphetamine. Each sentence was to be served concurrently, with a maximum period of three years and three months' imprisonment. Snowden was discharged on the remaining three charges, as the Crown offered no evidence. The court took into account the starting point of four years and six months' imprisonment, reduced by a 25 per cent discount for Snowden's guilty plea and a two-month discount for remorse. The court also considered the commercial nature of the offending and the gravity of the drug involved.

Orders