R v Tate - [2016] NZHC 2522

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-085-006779 [2016] NZHC 2522

THE QUEEN

v

CHEYENNE MAHALIA TATE

Counsel:
H K Goodhew for Crown

M W Ryan for Defendant (via AVL)

Sentence:

21 October 2016

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Ms Tate, you are to be sentenced in relation to the following charges: (1) One charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.1 (2) One charge of possession of methamphetamine.2
(3) One charge of possession of an offensive weapon.3

[2] You pleaded guilty to these charges after I gave you a sentence indication on

16 August 2016. I indicated a sentence of a little over three years was appropriate and said I would consider a sentence of home detention if further information was
provided which enabled me to consider that option.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f). Maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
2      Section 7(1)(a). Maximum sentence is six months’ imprisonment/$1,000 fine or both.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(b). Maximum sentence is three years’ imprisonment.

R v TATE [2016] NZHC 2522 [21 October 2016]

[3] This morning I shall:

(1) summarise your offending;

(2) explain the starting point I have adopted;

(3) explain the adjustments I will make to the starting point; (4) refer to the other deductions I am able to make; and
(5) explain the sentence that I am imposing.

Your offending

[4] Since early 2013, the investigation called “Operation Fantail” targeted a large scale methamphetamine supply network. You are one of the defendants who played a role in this network.

Possession of methamphetamine for supply

[5] The charges against you concerned an incident at Paraparaumu in May 2014.

[6] On 20 May, a co-defendant, Mr Beazley, began arranging through an associate the purchase and supply of a large amount of methamphetamine from one of the Auckland based defendants, Mr Wildman. He regularly reported the progress of the arrangements to Mr McKinley. Eventually the parties agreed on a price of
$65,000 for 142 grams of methamphetamine including the transportation of that drug. On that evening, Mr McKinley called Mr Murdoch, another defendant whom I have already sentenced, and advised him that a drug deal was being arranged and that he needed to deliver cash, hidden in his property, to his Wellington apartment. This is what Mr Murdoch did.

[7] Meanwhile in Auckland, Mr Wildman contacted you and arranged for you to courier the 142 grams of methamphetamine to Wellington. You received the drugs which were contained in a number of plastic bags. You and Mr Wildman then wrapped the bags in paper towels and secreted them in aerosol cans that had been

converted for the purpose of transporting the drugs. You then put the cans in the

boot of Mr Wildman’s car to make them look like normal items.

[8] Mr Wildman gave you a piece of paper with the name of the purchaser “Kaylib”, Mr Beazley’s first name, his phone number and the amount of $65,000 written on it. He instructed…

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 Tate

Details

AGLC: R v Tate [2016] NZHC 2522
Case: [2016] NZHC 2522
Decision Date: 21 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Cheyenne Mahalia Tate, was convicted and sentenced by Collins J in the High Court of New Zealand for possession of methamphetamine for supply, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of an offensive weapon. The legal issues in the case were determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, applying any necessary adjustments to the starting point, and considering personal mitigating factors to arrive at a final sentence. The court considered the defendant's role in the drug supply network, the quantity of drugs involved, and the degree of planning and premeditation. The court also took into account the defendant's previous convictions, her rehabilitation efforts, time spent on restrictive bail, and her cooperation with the authorities.

Collins J determined that a starting point of five years' imprisonment was appropriate, with a one-month uplift to reflect the defendant's previous convictions. The court then applied various deductions for rehabilitation efforts, time spent on restrictive bail, assistance to the authorities, remorse, and the guilty plea. The result was a provisional sentence of 24 months' imprisonment, which allowed the court to consider a sentence of home detention. Given the personal mitigating factors, Collins J imposed a sentence of 11 months' home detention for the charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply, and six months' home detention for the other two charges, all sentences running concurrently.

In summary, the court held that the defendant was accountable for her actions, promoted a sense of responsibility, denounced her conduct, deterred her and others from committing similar offences, and imposed the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances. The final orders of the court were that the defendant was sentenced to 11 months' home detention for the charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply, and six months' home detention for the other two charges, all sentences running concurrently.

Orders