R v Stevens
[2015] NZHC 2336
•25 September 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CRI-2014-004-5509 [2015] NZHC 2336
THE QUEEN
v
SHANNON KAY STEVENS
Charges:
Plea:
See over
Guilty
Counsel:
R M A McCoubrey and K Eastwood for Crown
A G Speed for PrisonerSentenced:
25 September 2015
SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J
Solicitors/Counsel: Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Crown
Andrew Speed (Auckland) for Prisoner
R v STEVENS [2015] NZHC 2336 [25 September 2015]
Introduction
[1] Ms Stevens, on 19 August 2014 you pleaded guilty to a large number of methamphetamine-related charges, two charges involving the unlawful possession of a restricted weapon and a firearm, and three charges of obtaining a document, as
follows:
Offence Section / Act Maximum penalty Manufacture of
methamphetamine (x3)
Misuse of Drugs Act
1975, ss 6(1)(b) and
6(2)(a)
Life imprisonment Supplying methamphetamine Sections 6(1)(c) and
6(2)(a)
Life imprisonment Possession of
methamphetamine for supply
Sections 6(1)(f) and
6(2)(a)
Life imprisonment Possession of ephedrine for
supply (x2)
Sections 6(1)(f) and
6(2)(b)
14 years imprisonment Possession of equipment with
intent (x2)
Sections 12A(2)(a) and
12A(3)(b)
5 years imprisonment Possession of material with
intent
Sections 12A(2)(a) and
12A(3)(b)
5 years imprisonment Unlawful possession of a
restricted weapon
Arms Act 1983,
s 50(1)(b)
3 years imprisonment
and/or $4000 fine
Unlawful possession of a
firearm
Section 45(1) 4 years imprisonment
and/or $5000 fine
Obtaining a document (x3) Crimes Act 1961,
s 228(a)
7 years imprisonment
Facts
[2] I am not going to go through the facts of your case in any detail. The facts to which you pleaded guilty are set out in the summary of facts.
[3] You have been, for some time, a leading member of a group involved in the large scale manufacture and supply of methamphetamine. You have gained significantly from your activities. The amount of methamphetamine manufactured is high, and for the purpose of the three charges it is certainly greater than two kilograms.
[4] The reason I am not going into the facts in any detail is because the path that you have chosen to tread is a well worn path and the tariff case of R v Fatu gives me clear guidance on how I should approach your case.1
Starting point
[5] I consider that your case is deep within band 4 of Fatu. This means that I should adopt a start point of between 13 years’ imprisonment and life imprisonment. The Crown submits that a start point of 16 years’ imprisonment is appropriate and your lawyer submits that a start point of 14-and-a-half years’ imprisonment is where the law should take me.
[6] In my view, given the quantity of methamphetamine manufactured on the three occasions identified, a start point of 16 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. I accept that Mr Shaw got less, but on my reading of the summary of facts your role is more as a leader in the group than his was.
[7] I also have to look at the additional offending. Much of it is part and parcel of the commercial manufacturing operation, particularly the supply charges which relate to you sharing out the products of manufacture. However, you did have in your possession a shotgun, a military style semi-automatic rifle, a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory and two kilograms of ephedrine. The manufacture and supply charges are your past activities. The laboratory and the ephedrine go to your intended activities. I think I could quite justify an uplift of three years’ imprisonment for these other charges. But I am not going to do that. I consider an uplift of 18 months’ imprisonment for these charges is appropriate. I have regard to the fact that your co-offender, Mr Shaw, received an uplift of nine months’
imprisonment for similar offending.2 And although, as I have said, I consider your
role in the criminal group to be more significant than Mr Shaw’s, I will nevertheless
limit the uplift. I bear in mind the totality principle. That brings the start point to
17 years six months’ imprisonment.
1 R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72, (2005) 22 CRNZ 410 (CA)
2 R v Shaw [2015] NZHC 238.
Personal circumstances
[8] I now turn to the factors which are personal to you.
Aggravating factors
[9] So far as aggravating factors are concerned, I have to have regard to your previous convictions. On 20 May 2005, you were sentenced to six years’ imprisonment on similar charges. I have read the sentencing notes of Rodney Hansen J. I also note that at that time methamphetamine was a Class B controlled drug and is now a Class A controlled drug. It is clear that Rodney Hansen J regarded you as a junior partner in the commercial manufacturing enterprise and that you had been drawn into assisting with the manufacture of methamphetamine by Mr Cavanagh and by your addiction to methamphetamine. You received a lenient
sentence.3
[10] There are significant similarities between your offending back then and the offending for which you are being sentenced now. They include your participation with the same key offenders. Further, your first creation of a new false identity, and by inference your involvement with this group, came three months after your release from prison.
[11] The Crown submits that an uplift of 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment is appropriate to take into account this previous offending. I accept that I could uplift your sentence at this point by 18 months. However, I consider that deterrence is largely provided for by the start point already reached and by the minimum period of imprisonment that I will impose. I note also that your deep rooted addiction to methamphetamine is a factor here. You were not driven in your earlier offending by commercial motives. Your current offending, although you made significant commercial gains, was also partly to feed your addiction. Accordingly, and again keeping in mind the totality principle, I will uplift the start point by six months. That
yields a total start point of 18 years’ imprisonment.
3 R v Cavanagh & Ors HC Auckland CRI-2002-004-206137, 20 May 2005.
Mitigating factors
[12] I turn now to mitigating factors.
[13] I have read carefully your lawyer’s written submissions on your behalf. I have listened carefully to what he has said to me this morning. I can see that you are beginning to address your addiction and your certificates of achievement are encouraging. I have regard to your lawyer’s submission that I should not impose a sentence which is crushing and which limits any hope you have for rehabilitation.
[14] Ms Stevens, it is not my goal in this sentencing to impose the maximum sentence which would be available to me. I see no point in doing that given your history, age and prospects for rehabilitation. Instead, I am looking for a sentence which is within the range that the law says I must address and is reasonable in your circumstances.
[15] In offending of this sort, personal circumstances, unless extraordinary, can play little part. The only factor in this case which justifies a reduction in the starting point is the fact that you entered pleas of guilty. The case against you was strong and you delayed for a considerable period of time before entering pleas of guilty. I have listened to your lawyer tell me that in his view much of the delay was because of disclosure, but more particularly the wrangling over whether you should provide a DNA sample for one of the charges to which you eventually pleaded guilty.
[16] I do not accept that you are remorseful, beyond the remorse that anybody in your situation would feel upon being caught.
[17] The Crown submits that the appropriate discount is in the range of 10 to
15 per cent and your lawyer submits that a discount in the range of 15 to 20 per cent would be warranted. I have decided that you are entitled to one-half of the discount you would have received had you entered guilty pleas at the earliest reasonable time. That is to say, 12-and-a-half per cent.
[18] Your sentence on the lead charges will, therefore, be 15 years and nine months’ imprisonment. I consider this sentence to be at the lower end of the range available to me in your case.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[19] I have no doubt that I am required to impose a minimum period of imprisonment. The nature of your offending and your record of offending which require denunciation and a message of deterrence to be sent, plus the need I identify to protect the public, mandate it. I will keep it as low as I reasonably can.
[20] I impose a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent of your sentence, which is seven years 10 months.
Sentence
[21] Would you stand, Ms Stevens:
· On each of the three charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, you are
sentenced to 15 years nine months’ imprisonment.
· On the charge of supplying methamphetamine, you are sentenced to 15 years
nine months’ imprisonment.
· On the charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply, you are
sentenced to 15 years nine months’ imprisonment.
· On each of the two charges of possession of ephedrine for supply, you are
sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.
· On each of the two charges of possession of equipment with intent, you are
sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.
· On the charge of possession of material with intent, you are sentenced to
three years’ imprisonment.
·On the charge of unlawful possession of a restricted weapon, you are sentenced to two years imprisonment.
·On the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm, you are sentenced to two- and-a-half years’ imprisonment.
· On each of the charges of obtaining a document, you are sentenced to one
year’s imprisonment.
[22] All of these sentences will be served concurrently, which means that your effective sentence is one of 15 years nine months’ imprisonment, with a minimum non parole period of seven years 10 months’ imprisonment.
[23] You may stand down.
Brewer J
4