R v Telford

[2018] NZHC 659

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2017-063-3068

-  [2018] NZHC 659

THE QUEEN

v

NATASHA DAWN TELFORD

Hearing:

12 April 2018

Appearances:

R Douch for Crown

H Roose for Defendant

Judgment:

12 April 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v NATASHA DAWN TELFORD [2018] NZHC 659 [12 April 2018]

[1]    Ms Telford, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty this morning to a charge of wilfully attempting to obstruct the course of justice. The maximum penalty for that offence is seven years imprisonment. You have now been in  custody since 25 August 2017. For that reason you have waived your entitlement to a pre-sentence report, so I am able to sentence you immediately after your guilty plea.

Background

[2]    Your offending occurred as a result of your involvement with a person by the name of Rollie James Heke. The summary of facts records that Mr Heke absconded from EM bail in September 2016 whilst he was awaiting sentence on drug-related charges. He then remained at large until August 2017. He came to national prominence in the early hours of August 2017, when he became involved in an incident in which he fired a number of shots at police officers in the Morrinsville area. He then fled the scene and remained at large for a further 11 days.

[3]    On the afternoon of 24 August 2017, Mr Heke contacted you by cellphone. He sought your assistance in getting in contact with associates. A series of telephone calls then occurred over the next five or six hours. Ultimately Mr Heke came to your address at your instigation at about 9 pm on the evening of 24 August. The police arrived approximately three hours later and arrested him.

[4]    Your culpability lies in the fact that you were prepared to assist Mr Heke with making arrangements to get in contact with others. You then gave him a place of refuge at a time when you clearly knew that he was wanted by the police. Indeed, most of New Zealand by that stage would have known he was wanted by the police.

Starting point

[5]    There is no tariff or guideline judgment of the Court of Appeal to set the starting point for this type of offending. That is no doubt because it can occur in many different  ways.   Some  parallels  can  be  drawn  between  your  case  and  that  in  R v Te Tomo.1 In that case the Judge selected a starting point of 15 months

1      R v Te Tomo [2012] NZHC 71.

imprisonment for an offender who had provided assistance over several weeks to a person who was on the run. In R v Smith the offender had provided assistance to her brother, who was also wanted by police.2 That assistance had extended over some months and involved providing the brother with top-up cards for his cellphone and also making arrangements for him to obtain methamphetamine. Again, in that case, a starting point of 15 months imprisonment was selected.

[6]    I consider your culpability is well below that of the offenders in the two cases to which I have referred because your assistance was only provided for a period of hours on a single day. The only thing you provided Mr Heke with was the ability to get in contact with other persons and a place of refuge for a few hours.

[7]    Taking those factors into account, I select a starting point of eight months imprisonment.

Mitigating factors

[8]    You are obviously entitled to a credit for your guilty plea. It came at a relatively late stage given the fact that your trial is due to commence in October 2018. I propose to reduce your sentence by one month to reflect that fact.

Sentence

[9]    This results in an end sentence of seven months imprisonment which should mean that you are released today.

[10]Stand down.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Almao Douch, Hamilton H Roose, Rotorua

2      R v Kirsty Smith HC Hamilton CRI-2006-019-4626, 16 November 2006.