R v Tang HC Auckland CRI-2009-004-13439
[2011] NZHC 1198
•6 October 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CRI-2009-004-13439
THE QUEEN
v
ZHONG JIE TANG, TERRENCE ARTHUR SIMS, STEVEN JOHN BAIRD, ROBERT JONES,
WENBIN GU AND JIALIN WU
Hearing: 6 October 2011
Counsel: Y Yelavich and P Carter for the Crown
P Tomlinson for Mr Tang
M Dyhrberg and O Hintze for Mr Sims
A Speed for Mr Baird
S Tait for Mr Jones M Edgar for Mr Gu D Niven for Mr Wu
Judgment: 6 October 2011
SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J
Solicitors:
Ms Y Yelavich, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Mr P Tomlinson, Solicitor, Auckland
Ms M Dyhrberg, Barrister, Auckland
Mr A Speed, Barrister, AucklandMr S Tait, Barrister, Auckland
Mr M Edgar, Barrister, Auckland
Mr D Niven, Barrister, Auckland
R V TANG, HC AK CRI-2009-004-13439 6 October 2011
[1] Zhong Jie Tang, Terrence Sims, Steven Baird, Robert Jones, Wenbin Gu and Jialin Wu – you appear today for sentence having been convicted on a number of charges of manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine and related charges. This conviction was by a jury following a three week trial.
[2] I would normally summarise the offences for which you are to be sentenced and provide a summary of the facts. And because you are to be sentenced for manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine, and for some related offences, it would also normally be necessary to explain the conclusion I have reached as to the quantity of methamphetamine involved. However, all of this information is contained in my disputed facts judgment delivered on 4 October 2011 – a few days ago. I do not intend to repeat what is contained in that judgment. The judgment is to form part of my reasons for the sentences I will now impose. However, in the transcript of the comments I am now making I will add at the beginning a summary of the offences.
[3] I have, of course, read all the written submissions from your counsel, letters from some you, and on your behalf in some cases, submissions for the Crown and the pre-sentence reports. I have also heard further submissions at the disputed facts hearing and I have heard further oral submissions this morning. And, of course as you know, I then stood the matter down to reflect on some particular issues. All of this has been taken into account but I will refer only to some of these matters to a limited extent.
The offences
[4] The summary of the offences (added in the transcript) is as follows:
(a) Count 1 – Mr Tang and Mr Sims – manufacturing methamphetamine between 6 April and 24 April.
(b)Count 2 – Mr Tang, Mr Sims and Mr Baird – supplying methamphetamine between 25 April and 25 May.
(c) Count 3 – all accused – manufacturing methamphetamine between 26
May and 28 May.
(d) Count 4 – five accused (excluding Mr Gu who was not charged) –
supplying methamphetamine between 28 May and 30 May.
(e) Count 5 – all accused – manufacturing methamphetamine between 2
June and 4 June.
(f) Count 6 – five accused (excluding Mr Gu who was not charged) –
supplying methamphetamine on 5 June.
(g) Count 7 – all accused – manufacturing methamphetamine between 8
June and 11 June.
(h)Count 8 – Mr Tang, Mr Gu and Mr Wu – possession of methamphetamine for supply on 11 June – particulars: “the white powder weighing 34.5 grams found in the restaurant’s kitchen at 189
Manukau Road, Epsom”.
(i)Count 9 – Mr Tang, Mr Gu and Mr Wu – possession of methamphetamine for supply on 11 June – particulars: “the crystalline material weighing 40.9 grams found in the restaurant’s kitchen at 189
Manukau Road, Epsom”.
(j)Count 10 – Mr Tang, Mr Gu and Mr Wu – possession of equipment for manufacture of methamphetamine – particulars: “hot plates, pH strips, protective face masks and gloves, respiratory gas masks, scales, funnels, conical flasks and other glassware found at 189 Manukau Road, Epsom”.
(k)Count 11 – Mr Tang, Mr Gu and Mr Wu – possession of precursor substance for manufacture of methamphetamine – particulars: “pseudoephedrine found at 189 Manukau Road, Epsom”.
(l)Count 12 – Mr Sims – possession of equipment for manufacture of methamphetamine – particulars: “reaction flasks, glass condensers, par bombs, hot plates, pH strips, pH strips, pH meter, steam distillers and assorted glassware found at 528 Makarau Road, Kaukapakapa”.
(m)Count 13 – Mr Sims – possession of precursor substances for manufacture of methamphetamine – particular: “pseudoephedrine, toluene and hydrochloric acid found at 528 Makarau Road, Kaukapakapa”.
(n)Count 14 – Mr Sims – possession of materials for manufacture of methamphetamine – particulars: “sodium hydroxide, iodine, fuelite, hypophosphorous acid and acetone found at 528 Makarau Road, Kaukapakapa”.
(o)Count 16 – Mr Jones – possession of materials for manufacture of methamphetamine – particulars: “isopropyl alcohol and iodine”.
Starting point
[5] I will proceed directly to assessment of a starting point relating to the lead offence of manufacture of methamphetamine. There were four convictions for manufacture in total but I will assess this in relation to the total quantity of methamphetamine that I have found was manufactured on four occasions – that is, between 375 and 500 grams of methamphetamine. This brings this offending within
the upper half of band 3 of the Court of Appeal decision in Fatu[1] with a range of
[1] R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA).
12 ½ to 15 years imprisonment. The starting point, taking a precise midpoint, would be 13 years nine months. I fix it at 13 years. Taking a starting point in the upper half of band 3, and then adjusting it down in the way I have just done, provides all of you
with a substantial benefit of the doubt as to the total quantity manufactured, for
reasons recorded in my disputed facts judgment. And the law is, of course, that you are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
[6] Mr Tang and Mr Sims – you were found guilty on all four counts of manufacturing methamphetamine. The rest of you were found guilty on three counts. The starting point of 13 years applies to Mr Tang as the principal offender on all four counts.
[7] I will now consider your individual circumstances, both in relation to your involvement in the offences for which you have been found guilty and in respect of matters personal to each of you. Some matters relevant to the assessment of your roles in the offending have also been covered in the disputed facts judgment and generally will not be repeated now. This includes the reason why I consider Mr Tang to be the principal offender of the six of you.
Mr Tang
[8] Coming to Mr Tang specifically. Mr Tang, the starting point of 13 years needs to be increased to take account of the other offences for which you have been found guilty. There are five convictions for supply or possession for supply of methamphetamine. The two offences of possession for supply relate to the total of
75.4 grams of methamphetamine found on 11 June 2009. These should be treated as one offence. There are the two further convictions for possession of the equipment and the precursor substance found at the motel. These offences, for which Mr Wu and Mr Gu were also found guilty, are in large measure contained in the manufacturing offences.
[9] Your central role in the supply of methamphetamine as well as manufacture could justify an increase to the starting point of three years or more. However, I take account in particular of one or two intercepted conversations indicating reasonably clearly that you had to account to another person for money – and this is another person who, it seems, has not been identified. I consider that the starting point should be increased by two years – to a total of 15 years imprisonment – to take account of the further offending.
Personal circumstances
[10] I next need to consider any increase or decrease having regard to matters personal to you.
[11] Mr Tang, you are aged 30. You were born in China. You came to New Zealand in 2000 aged 19. You have been married for approximately 20 months. You have one child aged 11 months.
[12] You have no previous convictions.
[13] There is evidence that you have contributed constructively to society in various ways – especially in helping other people. I have received a substantial number of very supportive and positive testimonials.
[14] You acquired the lease of the Jacaranda Motel in 2005 with money lent by your parents. You expanded to the adjoining restaurant in 2007. This money will be gone.
[15] You say that you started using methamphetamine because of your hours of work at the motel – from 6:00 am to 11:30 pm every day. You say you were then influenced by people involved in drug dealing to get involved yourself in manufacturing methamphetamine and being actively involved in supplying it.
[16] I have read two letters from you. I do accept that you have remorse and that you fully accept the criminality of your actions. What you have done has also had a devastating effect on your wife, child and parents.
[17] The Court of Appeal has said that positive personal circumstances cannot be given great weight by way of discount for serious offences involving drugs such as these. This, of course, is an observation that applies in the case of all of you. You are nevertheless, Mr Tang, entitled to some credit for the matters that I have referred to. Mr Tomlinson also submitted that there should be a further discount because of what he described as likely hardship from deportation at the end of your sentence. In
my judgment this is not a matter justifying a reduction. And the cases Mr Tomlinson referred to – Tanakura[2] and Takiguchi[3] – do not support the submission.
[2] R v Tanakura HC Auckland, CRI-2010-004-4085, 25 May 2010, Miller J.
[3] R v Takiguchi HC Auckland, CRI-2010-004-004084 and CRI-2010-004-008219, 16 November 2010, Duffy J.
[18] Nevertheless, in my judgment there should be a reduction to take account of the positive personal matters I have referred to. This reduction should be two years. This results in an end sentence for manufacturing methamphetamine of 13 years imprisonment.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[19] Mr Tang, the Crown submitted that there should be a minimum period of imprisonment. There are reasonable grounds for this having regard to s 86 of the Sentencing Act and observations of the Court of Appeal in a case called Wong[4] and earlier cases which are referred to in the Wong case. However, and as I have already indicated, assessing all relevant matters I have come to the conclusion that in your case there should not be a minimum period of imprisonment. I emphasise that this conclusion has full regard to the matters referred to in s 86, and in the Court of Appeal cases. It takes into account all matters that I have referred to and which are
otherwise contained in the information available to me.
Mr Sims
[4] R v Wong [2009] NZCA 332 at [21]; CA218/09, 29 July 2009.
[20] Mr Sims, the starting point for your conviction on the four counts of manufacturing methamphetamine could be close to, if not the same as, the starting point for Mr Tang of 13 years. You had a very active involvement in manufacturing methamphetamine on four occasions. However, it was overall a lesser role than that of Mr Tang. For that reason I fix the starting point in your case, on the four offences of manufacturing methamphetamine, at 10 years and six months.
[21] There needs to be an uplift for the other offences. There are three convictions for supply of methamphetamine. There is direct evidence of supply of 10 grams on
one occasion to one person. Otherwise I accept Ms Dyhrberg’s submission that the jury will have found you guilty for supply as a party to that offending. And in any event that is my conclusion.
[22] There are three further convictions for possession of equipment, possession of precursor substances and possession of materials for manufacture of methamphetamine. This relates to the very large quantity of items found at your home and referred to in the disputed facts judgment. The sheer volume of this material, including large quantities of expensive chemicals essential for manufacture of methamphetamine, makes these offences more serious, in relative terms, than the similar offences for which Mr Tang and some others were found guilty. There needs to be some uplift for this offending, rather than treating it as effectively absorbed in the sentence for manufacture.
[23] The uplift in your case will be one year to 11 years six months. And I would record that that is perhaps the absolute minimum.
Personal circumstances
[24] I come to your personal circumstances. You are aged 49. You have four children from two previous marriages.
[25] You have no previous convictions. I have received a number of positive and supportive references, including from your former wife. And the fact that she is willing to support you speaks for itself. In earlier years you were constructively involved in employment with obvious skills.
[26] However, over a 10 year period to 2009 you were heavily addicted to methamphetamine. Over six of these years you manufactured methamphetamine. You made a lengthy statement following your arrest on the present matters outlining your involvement in manufacture. I accept that your addiction to methamphetamine is a contributing factor to the present offending. More importantly, you have made commendable efforts to get free of the addiction since your arrest in June 2009 and
you have made commendable efforts in turn to rehabilitate yourself. And it is relevant that you have been assisted by your former wife and your children.
[27] In 2005 – and I am bound to state this in your interests – you were diagnosed with cancer. It is in remission. I accept Ms Dyhrberg’s submission that this is a matter that I can take into account when assessing the length of a prison sentence – and other matters relating to sentence – although it is not something to which I can attach undue weight.
[28] You have expressed remorse, which I accept as genuine, together with acceptance of your criminality.
[29] In my judgment the sentence should be reduced by two years to take account of these matters personal to you. This produces an end sentence of nine years six months imprisonment.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[30] There is again the question of a minimum period of imprisonment. I have concluded that in your case, as with Mr Tang, there should not be a minimum period of imprisonment. My reasons are, in broad terms, the same. I have also taken account of your cancer which is presently in remission.
Mr Baird
[31] Mr Baird, you were found guilty on three counts of manufacturing methamphetamine and on three counts of supplying methamphetamine. You were not directly involved in manufacturing methamphetamine, but I am satisfied you actively assisted as a party. You were directly involved, as a principal, in supplying methamphetamine. I do not consider there is any basis for drawing any significant distinction between your role and that of Mr Tang in the supply of methamphetamine.
[32] In your case I consider that the supply of methamphetamine should be treated as the lead offence. It is not possible to determine how much you directly supplied, compared with supplies by others where you were guilty as a party. The offending certainly comes within band 3 of Fatu, dealing with supply – I emphasise supply – dealing with supply of large commercial quantities between 250 and 500 grams. The starting point for a principal offender is between eight to 11 years. I fix the starting point at eight years – which is at the bottom – for the three offences of supplying methamphetamine. This gives you the benefit of the doubt substantially as to quantity. This should be increased by two years for the three offences of manufacturing methamphetamine, where you were guilty as a active party but not directly involved in the manufacturing process.
Personal circumstances
[33] I come to your personal circumstances. You are aged 42. You have been married for 17 years. You have two teenage children.
[34] Some years ago you established a sound and lighting business for entertainment events and have operated that successfully for a number of years.
[35] However, at the time you committed these offences you were on bail on three other drug dealing charges as follows:
Possession of 51.2 grams of methamphetamine for supply; Possession of 921 LSD tablets for supply; andPossession of 61 grams of heroin for supply.
[36] Those offences occurred in 2005. You were released on bail. You were sentenced in July 2009, not long after your arrest on the current matters. You were sentenced to six years and eight months imprisonment and you are currently serving
that sentence. On that sentence the Crown sought a minimum period of imprisonment but it was not imposed.[5]
[5] R v Baird HC Hamilton, CRI-2007-419-29, 3 July 2009, Lang J.
[37] You were also convicted in 1991 for sale of cannabis and sale of LSD. The total sentence was three years six months imprisonment. You had earlier been sentenced to 10 months imprisonment for supply of cannabis.
[38] The fact that the present offences I am dealing with occurred while you on bail for other serious drug offending, and following the earlier convictions, and notwithstanding the fact that they were in 1991, are significant aggravating factors. In all of the circumstances, Mr Baird, the offending while on bail is a seriously aggravating factor. This requires an increase of two years to 12 years imprisonment.
[39] There are no factors which in my judgment require a reduction in the sentence when assessing personal factors overall. However, Mr Speed submitted that the present offending was “closely related in time” to the offending for which you were sentenced in July 2009. On that basis Mr Speed submitted that the totality principle in s 85 should be applied by assessing the overall sentence for these offences in relation to the sentence you are currently serving. Mr Speed submitted that the sentence that would otherwise be justified for the present offending should be reduced.
[40] You were, as I have said, sentenced for the earlier offending in July 2009, but this was for offending that occurred in August 2005. There is no relationship in time, which brings s 85 into play. Nevertheless, I accept Mr Speed’s further submission that I must consider totality. A cumulative sentence of 12 years imprisonment would mean current sentences totalling 18 years six months imprisonment overall. I have already allowed for the previous offences and the offending on bail. Assessing this question of totality overall, I have decided that the appropriate end sentence is 10
years imprisonment compared with the assessment in isolation of 12 years.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[41] There is also the question of a minimum period of imprisonment. In all the circumstances of your case, Mr Baird, I am in no doubt that there should be a minimum period of imprisonment. Your circumstances are markedly different from those of Mr Tang and Mr Sims. The minimum period of imprisonment is six years.
Mr Jones.
[42] Mr Jones, you were found guilty on three counts of manufacturing methamphetamine, two counts of supplying methamphetamine and one count of possession of material for manufacture of methamphetamine. You were guilty as a party to the manufacture on three occasions. You were not actively involved in the process, but you were actively and regularly engaged in supplying material for the purposes of manufacture, and in particular a large quantity of toluene. I am satisfied that the jury will have found you guilty of being actively involved in supplying methamphetamine, although I consider that the level of your involvement, in relation to quantity, was a great deal less than that of Mr Tang and Mr Sims.
[43] I fix the starting point in relation to the manufacture of methamphetamine at five years. This is to be increased by 18 months for the other offences taking it to six years six months.
Personal circumstances
[44] I come to your personal circumstances Mr Jones. You are aged 43. You have two adult children.
[45] You were assessed by the probation officer as having – and I quote – a “harmful pattern of methamphetamine use”. I accept that this contributed to this offending. You started using methamphetamine following an accident on a trawler
10 years ago and it is reasonably clear that you have been a heavy, or fairly heavy, user of methamphetamine.
[46] In my assessment there was no significant indication of real remorse. The only reference to something of this nature is that you had not seen your two adult children since your arrest because you were ashamed of what had happened.
[47] You do have 15 previous convictions, including convictions for possession of methamphetamine and other drug possession charges. However, all of these convictions followed charges that were summarily laid and you have received no previous custodial or community based sentence. I consider it is appropriate to leave those earlier sentences – or convictions – to one side, and the Crown did not argue otherwise.
[48] I consider that your personal circumstances are, in effect, neutral, so there should be no adjustment to the sentence.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[49] I do not consider that there should be a minimum period of imprisonment in your case.
Mr Wu
[50] Mr Wu, I will deal with your sentence next.
[51] You were found guilty on three counts of manufacturing methamphetamine, two counts of supplying methamphetamine, two counts of possession of methamphetamine for supply and one count each of possession of equipment for manufacture and possession of a precursor substance.
[52] The two offences of possession of methamphetamine for supply should be treated as a single offence for the purposes of sentencing. I have already noted this. It relates to the total of 75.4 grams of methamphetamine found at the motel.
[53] On your behalf Mr Niven submitted that you were simply an assistant to Mr
Tang from time to time. I accept that you were an assistant, but you voluntarily and
knowingly involved yourself as an assistant in activities relating both to the manufacture and the supply of methamphetamine. In relation to specific charges the following points, amongst others, may be noted – and I apprehend there is no issue
taken with this on facts:
You were at the motel on 28 May when extraction occurred, relating to one
count of manufacture.
You were not at the motel on 2 June on the second occasion of manufacture
on which you have been found guilty.
You were at the motel on 11 June when manufacturing occurred, being the
third count on which you were found guilty.
I accept that you had no direct involvement in actually supplying other
people.
I accept you had no relevant association with Mr Sims, Mr Baird or Mr
Jones. And it is convenient to note now that the same applies to Mr Gu.
You did try, at Mr Tang’s request, to obtain a cutting agent which is used for the purposes of supply. This was MSM. And I do note that some MSM was
found at the motel on 11 June.
[54] The starting point, fixed in relation to the three offences of manufacturing, should in my judgment be six and a half years imprisonment. There needs to be an increase for the other offences. However, I consider your direct involvement in the other offences to be relatively minor. I am satisfied, for example, that you could only have been found guilty of possession for supply of the 75.4 grams of methamphetamine on the basis that you assisted Mr Tang in some way in that regard or – and perhaps more likely – on the basis that you were part of the common criminal enterprise contended by the Crown. The methamphetamine in terms of possession would have been controlled by Mr Tang, as is the case with the equipment and precursor substances.
[55] The increase for the other offences should be one year taking it to seven and a half years.
Personal circumstances
[56] Your personal circumstances. You are aged 30. You were born in China. You came to New Zealand in 2001.
[57] You completed a business diploma and then worked constructively in various jobs. And, of course, all of that you have thrown away.
[58] You have no relevant previous convictions – the only convictions are for two driving offences.
[59] There are no alcohol or drug issues.
[60] You have expressed remorse and motivation not to offend again. I accept that there is real remorse and, as best as these things can be judged, I accept that you do have motivation not to offend again. I have read your letter to me together with that of your partner.
[61] You are entitled to some reduction in respect of these matters personal to you. I have to allow that reduction in relation to the starting point and the increase I arrived at to get some proportionality. For this reason the allowance I make in your case is 18 months for positive personal matters. The result is an end sentence of six years on the lead offences of manufacturing methamphetamine.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[62] I do not consider there is a basis for imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment. And again, the Crown did not seek one.
[63] I come, finally, to Mr Gu. You were found guilty on three counts of manufacturing methamphetamine, two counts of possession of methamphetamine for supply and one count each of possession of equipment and possession of a precursor substance.
[64] In your case a starting point should also be fixed in relation to the three manufacturing offences. In broadest terms there is not much to distinguish you from Mr Wu in relation to the nature of your involvement as opposed to the extent of it. The only material difference in that regard is that you were Mr Tang’s employee. It has some relevance in your favour. You had worked for Mr Tang for three years. The officer-in-charge of this case described you as a “dog’s body” around the motel. My assessment, Mr Gu, is that you were in some respects – and relevant respects – essentially subservient to Mr Tang. There is a body of evidence which supports me in that conclusion and I do not consider it necessary to go into it. This does not in any way excuse your offending. You were free to pull out. But it does to a limited extent reduce your overall culpability – the extent of your criminal responsibility – compared with that of Mr Wu. In addition, there is evidence of your direct involvement in manufacture on one occasion only. For this reason, Mr Gu – and as with all of you, giving you benefit of the doubt – I fix the starting point, related to the manufacturing of methamphetamine, at four and a half years imprisonment.
[65] There were no charges against you for supplying methamphetamine. There are the two offences of possession of methamphetamine for supply and the equipment and precursor offences. The circumstances relating to these in your case are exactly the same as the circumstances relating to Mr Wu. I do not consider that the uplift for the other offences – all of the other offences – should be more than six months, increasing it to five years overall at this point.
Personal circumstances
[66] I then need to consider your personal circumstances. You are aged 47. That is, in fact, one of the matters I took account when considering your relationship to
Mr Tang, who is much younger, but was directing you. You were born in China. You have lived in New Zealand for a number of years. You were married in 2006. You and your wife do not have any children.
[67] You have no relevant convictions and there is no issue relating to your use of drugs.
[68] You have acknowledged that your actions were wrong. You said that you regret that you did not have the ability to refuse Mr Tang’s requests. I accept that these are genuine statements. I have the positive reference from another person on your behalf.
[69] Your sentence should be reduced by 18 months also to take account of positive factors personal to you. That means, Mr Gu, an end sentence of three years six months imprisonment.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[70] Again, there is no justification in your case for a minimum period of imprisonment.
Forfeiture
[71] There is one further matter I would briefly note – a further matter relating to the Crown’s application for forfeiture of sums of cash. That application applies to Mr Jones, Mr Gu and Mr Wu. There is no opposition on behalf of Mr Sims.
[72] I record the direction that the Crown will, within the next two weeks, file a memorandum noting the evidence the Crown relies on for forfeiture in the case of Messrs Jones, Wu and Gu. Each counsel will respond on behalf of their client within a following period of two weeks. And I will make a decision on the forfeiture question on the papers, as agreed by counsel, unless something unanticipated arises.
[73] I will now impose the formal sentences.
[74] Mr Tang you should firstly stand.
For the four offences of manufacturing methamphetamine you are sentenced
to imprisonment for 13 years.
For the three offences of supplying methamphetamine and the possession of
methamphetamine for supply you are sentenced to eight years imprisonment.
For possession of equipment and possession of a precursor substance you are
sentenced to imprisonment for one year.
These sentences are to be concurrent. This means that the total is 13 years
imprisonment.
[75] Mr Sims:
For the four offences of manufacturing methamphetamine you are sentenced
to imprisonment for nine years six months.
For the three offences of supplying methamphetamine you are sentenced to
imprisonment for four years.
For the offences of possession of equipment, precursor substances and
materials you are sentenced to imprisonment for two years.
All of the sentences are concurrent.
[76] Mr Baird:
For the three offences of supplying methamphetamine you are sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years.
For the three offences of manufacturing methamphetamine you are sentenced to imprisonment for five years.
There will be a minimum period of imprisonment of six years.
Those sentences are concurrent but the overall sentence of 10 years is cumulative on the sentence you are currently serving. Take a seat.
[77] Mr Jones:
For the three offences of manufacturing methamphetamine you are sentenced
to imprisonment for six years six months.
For the two offences of supplying methamphetamine you are sentenced to
imprisonment for three years.
For possession of the material you are sentenced to imprisonment for one
year.
And all of those sentences are concurrent. Take a seat.
[78] Mr Wu:
For the three offences of manufacturing methamphetamine you are sentenced
to imprisonment for six years.
For each of the two offences of supplying methamphetamine and the two offences of possession of methamphetamine for supply you are sentenced to
imprisonment for 18 months.
For the two offences of possession of equipment and a precursor substance
you are sentenced to imprisonment for six months.
All of thosesentences are to be served together, so the total is six years. Take a seat.
For the three offences of manufacturing methamphetamine you are sentenced
to imprisonment for three years and six months.
For the two offences of possession of methamphetamine for supply and the offence of possession of equipment and possession of a precursor substance
you are sentenced to imprisonment for one year.
These are concurrent sentences. The total is three years six months.
[80] You should all now stand down.
Peter Woodhouse J
0