R v Uren

[2017] NZHC 1250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2015-088-3515 [2017] NZHC 1250

THE QUEEN

v

CORY JOHN UREN

Hearing:	2 and 8 June 2017
Appearances:	N J Dore for Crown B Meyer for Defendant
Judgment:	8 June 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v UREN [2017] NZHC 1250 [8 June 2017]

[1]      Mr Uren, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to six charges. They are charges of supplying methamphetamine, being in possession of methamphetamine for supply, possession of methamphetamine, possession of materials for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine, conspiring to supply methamphetamine and conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine. As you will be aware, the most serious of these are the charges of supplying methamphetamine and being in possession of methamphetamine for supply.  Each of those charges carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

[2]      You accepted a sentence indication that I gave on 12 April 2017.1     In my sentence indication I set out the facts underlying your offending and I do not propose to repeat those here.   My sentence indication remarks will be annexed to these remarks and will form part and parcel of them.

[3]      In short, you have acknowledged being involved in the supply, or being in possession for supply, of methamphetamine totalling 56.2 grams.   You have also pleaded guilty to charges relating to the manufacture of methamphetamine.  Those charges relate to a manufacturing operation that produced 56.6 grams of methamphetamine.

[4]      I took the lead, or most serious, charges to be those relating to the supply of methamphetamine.  I selected a starting point of three years imprisonment in respect of those charges.  I then increased that by two years to reflect the charges relating to the manufacture of methamphetamine.  This produced an end sentence of five years imprisonment before taking into account mitigating factors.

[5]      I made an allowance of one year three months to reflect the fact that you would receive a credit of 25 per cent if guilty pleas were entered shortly after the indication.  You are obviously entitled to that credit now that you have entered your guilty pleas.

[6]      When I gave the indication, I advised you that it might be possible to provide a further modest discount to reflect other mitigating factors.  In this area of the law

1      R v Uren [2017] NZHC 722.

personal factors are given much less weight than they are in other areas of criminal law.

[7]      I have now received a pre-sentence report that describes your background and also the circumstances in which you came to commit the present offences.   The report is not entirely helpful to you, because the report writer says that you have minimised and justified your offending.  In particular, you have apparently said that you were not involved in the supply of methamphetamine and that you view yourself as being a good Samaritan. As you know, you have entered guilty pleas to charges of supplying methamphetamine, and I have to sentence you on that basis.

[8]      The concerning issue arising out of the report is that you say you do not have a problem with methamphetamine, and you have mainly used it in order to deal with issues of boredom.  You have said that the methamphetamine that was found was for your own personal use, and that you had decided to buy it in bulk prior to the Christmas period rather than trying to source it during the holiday.

[9]      That flies in the face of submissions made by your counsel today.  He submits that you recognise you have a problem with an addiction to methamphetamine and that you wish to seek help in respect of that issue.  Given the sentence I am about to impose, you will now be eligible to apply immediately for parole.  I have no doubt that the parole authorities will be anxious to ensure that this issue is properly recognised by you and dealt with in any release conditions that might be imposed. Obviously it creates the greatest risk that you will offend again in the future.

[10]     I have also received today letters from members of your wider family and acquaintances.  These cast you in a positive light and indicate that you have a strong support network behind you when you are released.   That is important, because without a strong support network, there is a real risk that you will get involved again in this type of offending.  Should you do so, the courts will deal with you as a repeat or recidivist offender, and the sentence imposed will inevitably be longer.

[11]     I regret that I am unable to find any further factors that would justify me reducing the sentence further.  The end sentence will therefore be one of three years nine months imprisonment.

Sentence

[12]     On the charges relating to the supply of methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine for supply, you are sentenced to three years nine months imprisonment.  On the charge of being in possession of methamphetamine, you are sentenced to three months imprisonment.  On the charges of being in possession of materials and conspiring to supply methamphetamine, you are sentenced to two years imprisonment.

[13]     All sentences are to be served concurrently.  This means that you will serve an effective end sentence of three years nine months imprisonment.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND OF THE REQUEST FOR A SENTENCING INDICATION IN ANY NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE IS PROHIBITED BY SECTION 63 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT

2011 UNTIL THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN SENTENCED OR THE CHARGE DISMISSED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2015-088-3515 [2017] NZHC 722

THE QUEEN

v

CORY JOHN UREN

Hearing:	12 April 2017
Appearances:	N J Dore for Crown B Meyer for Defendant
Judgment:	12 April 2017

SENTENCE INDICATION OF LANG J

[1]      Mr Uren is due to stand trial in this Court in May 2017 on six drug-related charges.  These comprise two charges of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply, supplying methamphetamine, being in possession of materials with intent that they be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine, conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and conspiring to supply methamphetamine.  All of the charges were laid as a result of a police operation that resulted in text messages being intercepted indicating Mr Uren’s involvement in a drug distribution and manufacture network.

[2]      Mr  Uren  now  seeks  a  sentence  indication  in  respect  of  the  charges.   A sentence indication is an indication of the sentence that would be imposed in the event that Mr Uren was to enter guilty pleas within a reasonably short timeframe.  In the event that Mr Uren does not accept the indication and is later found or pleads guilty to the charges, the sentence indication will be of no further effect.   In that event the sentencing Judge will impose a sentence based on the facts as he or she finds them to be.

The facts

[3]      The  offending  arose  as  a  result  of  Mr  Uren’s  association  with  the Headhunters  gang.    This  saw  him  in  close  text  message  communication  with members of the gang.   He also became involved in  their physical activities by driving gang members around on drug-related activities.   This developed into supplying methamphetamine to others on his own account.  Furthermore, he became involved with a methamphetamine manufacturing operation.   This resulted in him providing assistance in the form of materials such as caustic soda.  It is clear that he had a close relationship with persons involved in the manufacturing side of the enterprise given the level of text message communications.

[4]      The two charges of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply arose as a result of the police searching Mr Uren and his home on 16 and 17 December

2015. When they searched his person, they found 8.8 grams of methamphetamine on him.  When they searched a glasses case under a mattress on the bed at his home address, they found five grams of methamphetamine.

[5]      The charges  of supplying methamphetamine  relate to  the supply of 14.1 grams of methamphetamine.  The charge of conspiring to supply methamphetamine relates to transactions involving 28.3 grams of methamphetamine.  In all, therefore, Mr Uren was in possession of, supplied or conspired to supply a total of 56.2 grams of methamphetamine.  Those are actual amounts.  The charges have not been laid as representative charges.

[6]      The charge of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine and being in possession of a precursor substance relates to a manufacturing operation that produced 56.6 grams of methamphetamine.

[7]      All of the methamphetamine charges, other than the conspiracy charges, carry a  maximum  sentence  of  life  imprisonment.    The  conspiracy  charges  carry  a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment.

Starting point

[8]      Mr Uren’s offending clearly calls for a starting point within band 2 identified in R v Fatu.2   This relates to dealing in and manufacturing of between five and 250 grams of methamphetamine.   Starting points within this band range between three and nine years imprisonment, and four and 11 years imprisonment respectively.

[9]      A discount would need to be applied to the conspiracy charges to reflect the fact that conspiracy is generally less culpable than the substantive offence.   In the present case, however, both conspiracy charges relate to transactions and manufactures that clearly went ahead.  As a result, very little differentiation can be made between the conspiracy charge and a substantive charge.

[10]     Fixing the starting point in the present case is very much an intuitive exercise based on Mr Uren’s overall culpability.  I agree with the Crown that the lead charges are those relating to the actual supply of methamphetamine and being in possession of   methamphetamine   for   supply.      The   charge   of   conspiring   to   supply

methamphetamine also needs to be factored into this equation.  I consider that the

2      R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA).

lowest possible starting point for this group of charges would be one of three years imprisonment.  An uplift then needs to be added to reflect Mr Uren’s involvement in the manufacture of methamphetamine.   This was by no means a peripheral involvement.  It is clear that, despite the fact that he was at the lower level of the gang hierarchy, he was nevertheless willingly involved in supplying precursor materials and other forms of assistance to those who were physically involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine.

[11]     On its own, these charges would easily justify a starting point of three years imprisonment having regard to the fact that they fall within band 2 identified in Fatu. Applying totality principles, however, I consider an uplift of two years imprisonment on those charges is warranted.   This results in an end sentence of five years imprisonment, which is at the bottom end of the range suggested by the Crown.

[12]     Another Judge has suggested that defendants in this proceeding who plead guilty shortly will receive a discount of 25 per cent.  In Mr Uren’s case that would amount to one year three months.  The indicated sentence is therefore one of three years nine months imprisonment before taking into account other mitigating factors. I emphasise, however, that any further discount may be modest, because the authorities are clear that in this area of the criminal law personal factors carry much less weight than is the case in other areas.  I would need to see a pre-sentence report in order to ascertain whether any further discount is available.

[13]     Counsel for Mr Uren is to file a memorandum no later than Friday 21 April

2017 indicating whether Mr Uren wishes to accept the sentence indication. If he does, the proceeding will be listed for mention in the criminal callover in this Court

on 27 April 2017 at 9 am at which point Mr Uren would be arraigned.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Whangarei