R v Strachan - [2013] NZHC 1711

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-069-251 [2013] NZHC 1711

THE QUEEN

v

RAE-CHAEL REYNAE STRACHAN

Charge:

Plea:

Supplying Class A controlled drug

Guilty

Counsel: PP Crayton for Crown
WN Dollimore for Prisoner

Sentenced: 5 July 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors: Almao Douch (Hamilton) for Crown
Wayne Dollimore (Hamilton) for Prisoner

R v STRACHAN [2013] NZHC 1711 [5 July 2013]

Introduction

[1] Ms Strachan, you have pleaded guilty to supplying methamphetamine. The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment.

[2] In this case, I have to decide whether you serve a term of imprisonment or whether a community based sentence is available to you.

Facts

[3] You were in a relationship with a large scale manufacturer of methamphetamine. From text messages obtained by the Police for the period August
2011 to January 2012, it was calculated that you supplied 28 grams of methamphetamine in amounts of up to six grams. For some of these transactions you were acting as an intermediary for your ex partner but on other occasions you approached buyers directly. When your ex partner, Mr Harries, was arrested in February 2012, you were at his address and you were arrested also. You admitted to supplying methamphetamine on his behalf.

Personal circumstances

[4] Ms Strachan, you are 29 years old. You are a mother of two young children. You were in your relationship with Mr Harries for about two years. You now say that you felt trapped and intimidated and had plans to leave Mr Harries.

[5] You say that you started to use cannabis and methamphetamine at the age of

18 and that you have been addicted to methamphetamine. Your drug consumption has decreased since your arrest but you have candidly admitted to using cannabis. Your alcohol consumption has also increased and the pre-sentence report writer has expressed a concern that given your history of dependence your use of illicit substances could escalate. That, of course, is of significant concern to the Court when I consider that if I do not send you to prison you will be put back in charge of young children.

[6] I note that you have completed an alcohol and drug counselling course with Care New Zealand and that you say, perhaps naively, you are no longer addicted to drugs. You are willing to continue with community based intervention to support your current abstinence.

[7] You have one previous conviction for possession of LSD. This was entered in 2011 and you were ordered to come up for sentence if called upon. You have said that Mr Harries was the source of the LSD.

[8] You have been candid in your account of your offending. You knew it was wrong and you knew that you and Mr Harries would get into trouble eventually. The writer of your pre-sentence report was impressed with your insight into the effect of your actions, especially its effect on your children. You said that your arrest has allowed you to address your…

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 Strachan

Details

AGLC: R v Strachan [2013] NZHC 1711
Case: [2013] NZHC 1711
Decision Date: 5 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Strachan, the defendant, Rae-Chael Reynae Strachan, pleaded guilty to supplying Class A controlled drug, specifically methamphetamine. The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment. The court had to decide whether Strachan should serve a term of imprisonment or if a community-based sentence would be more appropriate. Strachan had supplied methamphetamine in amounts of up to six grams over several transactions, sometimes acting as an intermediary for her ex-partner, who was a large-scale manufacturer of the drug. The court considered various factors, including Strachan's personal circumstances, her previous conviction, her addiction to methamphetamine, and her efforts towards rehabilitation.

The court took into account Strachan's age, her status as a mother of two young children, and her addiction to methamphetamine which began when she was 18. The court was concerned about Strachan's potential to reoffend given her history of drug dependence, but noted her willingness to continue with community-based intervention to support her abstinence from drugs. Strachan had completed an alcohol and drug counselling course and had been assessed as having a low risk of reoffending. The pre-sentence report recommended a sentence of home detention and community work. The court balanced the interests of society and Strachan's personal interests, considering the need to denounce the crime, impose a sentence that might deter others, and provide for Strachan's rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

After considering the arguments presented by both the Crown and Strachan's lawyer, the court set the starting point for Strachan's offending at three-and-a-half years' imprisonment. The court discounted the starting point by 25% to acknowledge Strachan's personal position, including her lack of a significant criminal record, her efforts towards rehabilitation, her remorse, and the needs of her family. The court also gave an additional 25% discount for the entry of pleas of guilty, which led to an end sentence of one year and 10 months' imprisonment. However, the court was satisfied that home detention was appropriate in Strachan's case, as it adequately reflected the punitive aspects of sentencing. The court also imposed a requirement for Strachan to complete 150 hours of community work.

Orders