R v Verdonk - [2018] NZHC 3251

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-092-11344

[2018] NZHC 3251

THE QUEEN

v

CATRINA JOSINA VERDONK

Hearing: 11 December 2018

Appearances:

N Fletcher and K Li for Crown J-A Kincade for Defendant

Judgment:

11 December 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v VERDONK [2018] NZHC 3251 [11 December 2018]

[1] Ms Verdonk, you appear for sentence today on a representative charge of permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine,1 and a representative charge of supplying methamphetamine.2 You entered your guilty pleas after I gave you a sentence indication on 23 October 2018.3 The facts of your offending are set out in my sentence indication and I will not repeat them here. My sentence indication will be attached to these remarks and form part of them.

[2] In short, you and your partner, Mr Moran, allowed your property to be used by a person called Mr Griffiths for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine there on no fewer than 13 separate occasions between January and June 2017. In return, you received money or drugs to feed your own addiction.

[3] I selected a starting point of two years nine months imprisonment on the lead charge of permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine. I then added an uplift of six months to reflect the supply charge. This related to occasions on which you supplied methamphetamine to associates in order to obtain money or drugs for your own habit.

[4] This produced a starting point of three years three months imprisonment. I applied a discount of ten months, or 25 per cent, to reflect guilty pleas. This produced a sentence of two years five months imprisonment before taking into account other personal mitigating factors. At the conclusion of the sentence indication I expressed the view that you might find it difficult get yourself below the two year threshold to enable a sentence of home detention to be considered.

[5] I now have the benefit of a comprehensive psychiatric report provided by your counsel. This provides me with a great deal of insight into the circumstances that have led to your offending. I do not propose to traverse the contents of the report in my sentencing remarks because it is not necessary to do so. The report demonstrates, however, that for some considerable period you have suffered from numerous mental

1      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 12(1) and 12(2)(a) (maximum penalty ten years imprisonment).
2      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a) (maximum penalty life imprisonment).
3      R v Griffiths, Verdonk & Moran [2018] NZHC 2733.

and physical disabilities. These have a very real impact on your everyday life and will continue to do so for the rest of your life.

[6] I have no doubt that these have an impact, for sentencing purposes, in two ways. First, they explain to a large extent why you have become a drug addict. Secondly, they…

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 Verdonk

Details

AGLC: R v Verdonk [2018] NZHC 3251
Case: [2018] NZHC 3251
Decision Date: 11 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Catrina Josina Verdonk appeared for sentencing on charges of permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine and supplying methamphetamine. Verdonk and her partner, Mr Moran, had allowed their property to be used for manufacturing methamphetamine on multiple occasions in 2017. In return, they received money or drugs to feed their own addiction. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the gravity of Verdonk’s involvement with her personal circumstances and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The primary legal issue was to establish a starting point for sentencing, taking into account the nature and extent of Verdonk’s criminal activity, and then applying appropriate discounts for her guilty pleas and any personal mitigating factors. The court also had to consider the broader context of her offending, including her mental and physical disabilities and her recent efforts to overcome her drug addiction.

The court began with a starting point of two years nine months imprisonment for the charge of permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine, and an additional six months for the charge of supplying methamphetamine. After applying a discount for guilty pleas, the court arrived at a sentence of two years five months. The court then considered a comprehensive psychiatric report, which highlighted Verdonk's long-term mental and physical disabilities and their impact on her offending. This led the court to further reduce the sentence by three months for her rehabilitative efforts and an additional four months for her disabilities, resulting in a final sentence of one year ten months imprisonment. Given Verdonk’s successful efforts to remain drug-free and her support network, the court decided that a sentence of home detention would be more appropriate.

The court sentenced Verdonk to ten months home detention for permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine and three months for supplying methamphetamine, to be served concurrently. This decision aimed to support her ongoing rehabilitation and maintain her connection with her partner and support services. The court also discharged Verdonk on any other pending charges related to the same incident.

Orders