R v Welsh

[2024] NZHC 1981

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2022-042-1430

[2024] NZHC 1981

THE KING

v

ZANE CLIFFORD WELSH REPANA TANGIRĀ

HOPA WILLIAMS WILSON TESSA ROSE ALFORD

Hearing:

16 July 2024

Counsel:

J M Webber for Crown

E J Riddell for Defendant Welsh

W D McKean for Defendant Tangirā A J D Bamford for Defendant Wilson S J Zindel for Defendant Alford

Sentencing remarks:

16 July 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GRAU J

[1]                  Today, Zane Welsh, Repana Tangirā, Hopa Wilson and Tessa Alford appear for sentencing for their part in offending in September 2022, which involved the kidnapping of the primary victim, his mother and his teenage brother, and the infliction of serious harm on the primary victim by the principal offender, Dylan Hemana in the presence of Mr Tangirā. Mr Wilson, Mr Welsh and Ms Alford were not party to the violence to the primary victim, but they were parties to the kidnapping of all three victims. It also appears that the four defendants for sentence today were acting on the instructions of the principal offender, Mr Hemana.

R v WELSH & ORS [SENTENCING REMARKS] [2024] NZHC 1981 [16 July 2024]

[2]                  Mr Hemana will be sentenced at a later date. Over the Crown’s objection, and somewhat reluctantly, I granted him an adjournment to obtain a cultural report. I acknowledge this is unsatisfactory for the victims who deserve closure after two years. But Mr Hemana is in custody, he will remain in custody until he is sentenced, and he will inevitably be sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment when his starting point for sentence is 13 years and two months. Therefore, I considered it was in the interests of justice to allow him one opportunity to put more information before the Court about his background and how that may have had a connection to why he committed the offending.

[3]                  I have not seen victim impact statements from the three victims of the kidnapping and the violence in September 2022. That is not surprising to me. The Crown says they remain fearful and intimidated. I acknowledge that the effects on them must be very significant and will remain so. I have heard today a victim impact statement that relates to some of the offending by Mr Welsh and that victim expressed her fear at the time, and her ongoing fear, and alertness. It is a graphic illustration of the scourge of methamphetamine in our communities and the associated harm that follows it.

[4]                  Mr Welsh and Mr Tangirā appear for sentencing by videolink. I granted them permission to do so. The Crown did not oppose.

[5]                  All the four defendants  accepted a sentence indication that Isac J gave on   10 April 2024.1 Isac J was unable to conduct the sentencing today. Although it is usual for the Judge who gives a sentence indication to carry on to do the sentencing, that is not inevitable. Isac J’s indication is not binding on me, but I am conducting the sentencing on the basis that I do not intend to depart from the sentences he indicated, and that is because I agree with them. Isac J’s sentence indication notes should be attached to, and read with, my sentencing notes today. Isac J also gave sentence indications to Mr Welsh and Ms Alford on other drug-related charges they were facing

1      R v Hemana & Ors CRI-2022-042-1430 [10 April 2024].

in the District Court,2 which they also accepted and I will be sentencing them on those charges today also.

[6]                  I need to give an overview of the offending. I have adopted that from Isac J’s summary in his sentence indication.

[7]                  Mr Hemana and Mr Tangirā were associated with the Head Hunters Gang in Auckland. In 2022, Mr Hemana had been supplying methamphetamine to a Nelson- based dealer. In early September 2022, Police executed a search warrant at that dealer’s Nelson home. Mr Hemana was present. Police found a significant sum of cash, 39 grams of methamphetamine, and some of Mr Hemana’s Head Hunters’ clothing. But they did not find all of the methamphetamine because Mr Hemana and the Nelson-based drug dealer had visited the primary victim (who I will refer to as Mr H) and they had left him a significant quantity of methamphetamine to look after. The value of the methamphetamine was said to be at around $200,000. Mr Hemana then returned to the North Island.

[8]                  The methamphetamine was kept in the boot of a car at Mr H’s address. He was contacted and told to bury the bag, and he did, finding that it contained pottles and containers of methamphetamine. He later dug up the bag at the suggestion of a boarder who was staying with him. They took the bag to a motel. The boarder then disappeared with the methamphetamine, or at least most of it. Police later found just over 71 grams of methamphetamine at the motel where Mr H had told them to look. It is the theft of those drugs that led to the serious offending in this case.

[9]                  Mr Hemana and Mr Tangirā flew to Nelson on 18 September 2022 using false names. Their goal was to recover the stolen methamphetamine. They took a taxi to Mr H’s address. They ransacked his house. They persuaded Mr H to leave the motel where he was effectively hiding. He returned home. They detained Mr H, his mother, and Mr H’s 15-year-old brother. They told Mr H they were there to get what was theirs, and if they didn’t, they would do what needed to be done to his family. Mr H

2      R v Alford & Welsh CRI-2022-042-1430 [Sentence Indication of Isac J: District Court charges] [7 May 2024].

was told he had 24 hours. Mr Hemana and Mr Tangirā stayed at his home and would not let him leave.

[10]              The next  day,  19  September  and  overnight  into  the  early  morning  of  20 September, Mr H was taken on a number of journeys to locations around the Nelson area. This is the time that Ms Alford, Mr Welsh and Mr Wilson joined the group and assisted in the detention of Mr H, his mother, and his younger brother. The agreed summary of facts indicated that Mr Welsh was afraid of Mr Hemana and subsequently acted under his direction and that of Mr Tangirā. When he joined the group he was told to hand his phone over to Mr Hemana, and did so.

[11]              Mr Hemana told Mr H he would be taken up north. Some online inquiries were made about  flights and ferry crossings.   Some of these inquiries were  made on    Ms Alford’s phone.

[12]              Early in the morning of Tuesday 20 September, in anticipation of taking the ferry from Picton to Wellington, Mr  H  was  instructed  to  drive  Mr Tangirā  and Ms Alford to Blenheim. Mr Hemana stayed at Mr H’s address with Mr H’s mother and younger brother. He had Mr H’s phone and he used it to communicate with people, including Ms Alford. He was still trying to find the missing boarder who had taken the methamphetamine. As part of that process,  Ms Alford was used  as  a lure on  Mr Hemana’s instructions by sending him intimate images and suggesting the prospect of an encounter with her.

[13]              In the meantime, Mr H, Ms Alford and Mr Tangirā had gone to Blenheim. They parked outside a house for a time, then they went to a beach where they stayed for several hours and fell asleep before being woken by a Police officer, who was patrolling the area. Mr Tangirā then told Mr H to drive them to Picton and he was then instructed by Mr Hemana that they were to return to Nelson. Mr Tangirā was in contact with Mr Hemana throughout this trip. Mr Hemana was also in contact with Ms Alford, giving instructions and receiving updates.

[14]              When they returned to Nelson, Mr Tangirā told Mr H to wait in the garage with Ms Alford. Mr H’s younger brother was also there in the garage. Mr Tangirā went

inside. Mr Welsh and Mr Wilson were also at the address, taking turns to guard Mr H and his brother in the garage.

[15]              Mr Hemana and Mr Tangirā were with Mr H’s mother in the lounge. They were interrogating her. It appears Mr Hemana thought she had been involved with the person who took the methamphetamine and that she had something to do with it. This she denied. Mr Tangirā obtained her cell phone and her pin for her banking app. He made payments from her account to Ms Alford’s account of $390 and $400.

[16]              Mr Hemana told Mr H’s mother that he would make her watch him hurt her children and he would have sex with her daughter. Mr H was then brought in and  Mr Hemana inflicted serious injuries on him in front of his mother. Mr Tangirā was present throughout. Mr Hemana applied pliers to Mr H’s big toes, squeezed and wrenched them. He hit Mr H with a hammer on the knees and legs. He fractured a tibia. He hit Mr H in the face with a hammer, fracturing his jaw. The hammer also caused wounds to the skin of Mr H’s face and legs. Mr H was said to have described thinking that he may have lost consciousness for a period due to the extreme pain.

[17]              As I have said, Mr Tangirā was present when this violence was inflicted on Mr H, and Mr H’s mother was kept in the lounge at this stage.

[18]              Mr Welsh, Ms Alford and Mr Wilson were not present. Mr Welsh had taken the younger brother to get KFC and he had given Ms Alford and Mr Wilson a ride to another address in Nelson.  Mr  Welsh  returned  with  the  brother  and  the  KFC. Mr Wilson and Ms Alford then returned separately. Mr H was instructed to clean up his blood from the tools that he had been hit with. The summary says he was falling over as he attempted to walk on his broken leg. At some stage Ms Alford was assisting with cleaning up the house. At another stage during this period, Mr H’s sister arrived, saw her brother looking pale and terrified, her mother screamed at her to leave and she fled.

[19]              Just after midnight on 21 September, the younger brother was in his bedroom. He had been given his phone back. He hid in a wardrobe and called 111. Police were dispatched to the address. All of the defendants and the three kidnapping victims were

present when the Police arrived. Mr Hemana had told the mother and younger brother to get into a bedroom, and Mr Welsh, on Mr Hemana’s instructions, had gone in there to guard them and had turned the lights off telling them to be quiet. That is where they were found by the Police. Mr H was on the couch bleeding and in pain with visible injuries to his face and leg. Mr Hemana was able to leave despite the Police being at the address, but he returned a short while later giving a false name and offering

$10,000 to the Police to let him go.

[20]              A subsequent search of Mr Wilson’s vehicle revealed three rounds of ammunition and a small amount of methamphetamine.

Zane Welsh

[21]              Mr Welsh, I am going to sentence you first as you are in Christchurch, and they need their courtroom and their Registrar back.

[22]              You pleaded guilty to kidnapping, in relation to your role in the detention of the three victims. You accepted a sentence indication with a starting point of three years’ imprisonment. The Judge indicated to you that further credit might be available for time spent on EM bail, rehabilitative efforts and that there would be a reduction if you were to plead guilty. Then in an updated sentence indication, you pleaded guilty to other charges you faced, being a party to the supply of methamphetamine, intentional damage, and being found unlawfully on a property.3 Isac J uplifted the original starting point by nine months’ imprisonment to reflect that offending, and that is the victim impact statement that Mr Webber read out this morning. Therefore, the overall starting point for you is three years and nine months’ imprisonment.

[23]              The Crown acknowledges that you have taken opportunities on EM bail to work towards your rehabilitation. The material confirms that you completed an Odyssey House programme and a Literacy Skills programme. There are references from the Salvation Army Hereford House, and there are other personal references as well. All of this material shows a very significant lifestyle change and very meaningful rehabilitation that you have undertaken since you have been on EM bail.

[24]              There is also an alcohol and drug report. There is a letter confirming that you are employed and that you are considered as a valuable employee.

[25]              I have also seen a letter that you have written recently, reflecting on your time at Hereford House and the opportunity that presented. You have proudly stated 659 days of sobriety after battling a 15-year methamphetamine addiction since your early 20s. You have reflected on the impact on the victims, you have taken responsibility for your offending. You have said that you are deeply remorseful. You said that you have new addictions in life being sobriety, the gym, discipline and being hardworking

3      R v Alford & Welsh [7 May 2024].

and honest. You are repairing your family relationships. You have had a stable job now for one and a half years after the nine months you spent at Hereford House.

[26]              The PAC report, despite noting the total turnaround for you, nevertheless recommends imprisonment.

[27]              The submissions on your behalf suggest that there should be credit because there is a causal link to your addiction to methamphetamine and the offending, and that should be as high as around 30 per cent.

[28]              The Crown says it accepts that the sentence can get to a level where the Court can look at alternatives to imprisonment, but the Crown’s position has been that home detention is the least restrictive sentence that’s appropriate in the circumstances.

[29]              You will have heard the discussion this morning that I’ve had with the lawyers about whether the sentence could instead be a combination of community detention, intensive supervision, as well as judicial monitoring. That is something that you would very much prefer, particularly because there seem to be bureaucratic issues with changing you from being on electronic monitoring on bail to being on home detention that would disrupt your work, and things like going to the gym, which you’ve said is one of your pillars of recovery. You’ve said that you think if you were on intensive supervision and being monitored by a Judge that would hold you accountable.

[30]I’m going to sentence you as follows:

(a)A starting point of three years and nine months’ imprisonment, or

45 months.

(b)The credit for the guilty pleas is 25 per cent or 11 months.

(c)Credit for your personal factors: In this case, I consider that there is a causal connection between your methamphetamine addiction and all of the offending, including the kidnapping. That is what got you involved with these people and involved in the role that you played in the kidnapping. Post-offending and while on EM bail, you have turned

your life around completely. You have got stable, successful employment, you are sober, you are motivated to work on that. You have expressed remorse now. The suggested reduction of 30 per cent for those factors is too high in my view, but I am prepared to reduce the sentence by 15 per cent or seven months to reflect those factors.

(d)Taking those reductions off the starting point, they add up to 40 per cent or 18 months, they lead to a sentence of 27 months.

(e)Then I look at the fact of 18 months on EM bail without incident. I would reduce the sentence by nine months for that factor.

(f)That takes the sentence to 18 months’ imprisonment.

(g)I was going to convert that to nine months’ home detention but after reflecting on matters today and discussing it with the lawyers, I have decided that I am going to convert it, instead, to a combination of community detention, intensive supervision, as well as judicial monitoring. That should have the effect that you will not have to be disrupted in your work or with the changes that you have made life to continue on your path to recovery.

[31]              I my view, although the sentence might appear lenient on its face, it does give a significant period of supervision for you, with the additional layer of reports that will come to me every three months about your progress. It is my view, that it would be totally counterproductive to send you to prison for this offending. It would do nothing for the victims but it would be the end of the progress that you have made while you have had that opportunity on electronically monitored bail, which has been a great success.

Sentence

[32]The sentence will be:

(a)Six months’ community detention and that is to be served at the address that you are on EM bail; the curfew will be 8:30 pm until 5:00 am.

(b)You will be sentenced as well to 18 months’ of intensive supervision, and the conditions of that intensive supervision are set out in the pre- sentence report, which I am not going to read out now, but they are about alcohol and drug programs, non-association and other sorts of matters.

(c)        Judicial monitoring.

(d)That will be sentence on all of the charges apart from being unlawfully on a property, and I will convict and discharge you on that charge.

Repana Tangirā

[33]              Mr Tangirā, I am going to sentence you now. You pleaded guilty to kidnapping, being a party to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and accessing a computer system for a dishonest purpose.

[34]You accepted Isac J’s sentence indication which:

(a)set the starting point sentence at four years’ imprisonment;

(b)had a reduction of 25 per cent for pleading guilty and the possibility of further reductions to account for your young age at the time and for your prospects at rehabilitation;

(c)said there could be credit for time spent on electronically monitored bail; and

(d)that further discounts or reductions would depend on what information was available at the sentencing.

[35]              The Crown has looked at the information about the work you have done and they agree that you should get credit for that, as well as for the time you have been on electronically monitored bail. The Crown accepts that the reductions I can make would lead to an end sentence where I can look at alternatives to imprisonment. The Crown accepts that not sending you to prison would be a better outcome, because sending you to prison would be counterproductive. The Crown also says that nothing less than home detention would be appropriate because of the seriousness of the offending that you were involved in. But we have had a further discussion about that this morning and I will come back to it.

[36]              I have read all of the material about you and I want to say that it is impressive. You have come from a background and upbringing which has included a cycle of gang culture, drugs and poverty and joining a gang yourself which was possibly inevitable. But since the offending and you being arrested, you have lived with your whānau in quite challenging living conditions, but it is clear your whānau have given you

tremendous support. You have given up the gang lifestyle that you thought was glamourous and exciting, and instead you have focused on becoming a better person and contributing to your community. You have got your driver’s licence, a drive-smart certification, and a forklifting licence. You have done living without violence, alcohol and drug programs. You have been engaging in fitness activities and coaching.

[37]              You have aspirations and plans now. You are what is described as pro-social. You are said to be having a good influence on rangatahi, so they don’t repeat the mistakes that you made. You have been on electronically monitored bail since October 2022 with a little issue at the beginning, but without any issues since then, which cannot have been easy.

[38]              All of that makes me very puzzled why the pre-sentence report recommended that you should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. That would do nothing at all for the victims in this case, but it would only cause harm to you, to your whānau and to your community which you are now engaged in. Inevitably, were you to go to prison, on your release from spending time with the very sort of people that you need to be kept well away from, it would be bad for the wider community. It is in the public interest that you continue on your current path and become the man that you want to be, not return to the boy that you were.

[39]So, I am going to sentence you as follows:

(a)From a starting point of four years’ imprisonment, there is a 25 per cent reduction for your guilty pleas.

(b)I am then going to make a reduction of 30 per cent to reflect your youth, the rehabilitation that you have undertaken and continue to do, and your continuing potential. This reduction also factors in what I see as, what is called a causal connection between the circumstances of your upbringing and earlier life, and what led you to this criminal offending. There is a quote from the report that was written about you where the writer says she summarised the last two years of working

with you and your whānau, and of the growth and change that you have demonstrated. She said:

We can come from broken homes and the destruction of violence, drugs, gang cycle and poverty but we can still be great people and do great things for ourselves and for our families through realising and acknowledging who we are and where we came from.

Those are powerful words and this reduction is a very significant reduction, but in my view, it has been well earned. As a couple of examples, you have been involved in what is called Project 404. You have been said have made a vital contribution. They want to offer you a full-time position as a mentor. You are head coach of the under 16s rugby team. You are said to be treasured by the boys and a highly valued member of the club. I have also read your letter of remorse. I accept that it is genuine, and I factor that into this reduction as well. And it is supported by the evidence, that as you have said, you are a changed man, but at the time you were young and didn’t know better. I hope this letter can be passed onto the victims to give them some small comfort to see that this person who helped to terrorise them two years ago is now completely different. It is clear to me you were young and dumb, just doing as you were told with no thoughts of the consequences.

(c)These two reductions take 26 months off the starting point for the sentence takes it down to 22 months’ imprisonment.

(d)You are also entitled to a reduction for the time that you have spent on the restrictions on electronically monitored bail. In other cases, reductions vary widely; they can be quite small or right up to about  85 per cent of the time spent on EM bail. You were on EM bail for a long time—one year and nine months, which is extraordinary, in my experience, for a person of your age to get through that without much or any trouble. But I also recognise what the Crown says I have to make sure the reductions do not have the effect of producing an end

sentence that doesn’t reflect the serious of the offending that you were involved in.

[40]              On that basis, I consider that I can make a reduction of 10 months for the time spent on EM bail. While some cases have higher levels of reduction, I also note that, although the bail would have been restrictive, you have been able to attend a wide range of programmes and activities. But all of that has been very good for you and your whānau, and for your community.

Sentence

[41]              That results in an end sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment that I was originally going to convert to six months home detention. But after discussions with the lawyers today, taking into account how well you have done over the last couple of years and your young age, and recognising that the restrictions have a greater impact on a young person, I have decided to step down from that. What I am going to do is, instead of home detention, I am going to sentence you to:

(a)        Six months’ community detention, 8:00 pm to 8:00 am curfew.

(b)Two years’ intensive supervision. The conditions can be the same as the conditions in the PAC report that they suggested for home detention. I am not going to read them all out but they are about things like doing programmes, and people that you can’t spend any time with—pretty much what sort of conditions you have been on now. And the other thing is judicial monitoring. That means that I am going to get a report about you every three months and that is going to tell me how you are going on the sentence, and that just gives me some oversight.

[42]              So, I will be another lady who will be on your case if you are not behaving. I think that you have the potential to be a leader and a taonga for your whānau and your community. This seems to have been one time where you have badly gone off the rails but I don’t expect, and I certainly hope, that you never sitting where you are sitting ever again. Ka pai. Thank you.

Hopa Wilson

[43]              Mr Wilson, you pleaded guilty to one charge of kidnapping that related to your role in the kidnapping  of all  three victims  in  this case.  As with  Mr Welsh  and  Ms Alford, you were not present when Mr Hemana inflicted the serious violence on the primary victim.

[44]              You had earlier pleaded guilty to three charges in the District Court of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and possession of methamphetamine. Those charges came from the search of your vehicle.

[45]              You accepted a sentence indication that set the starting point for all of those four offences at three years and six months’ imprisonment, a 25 per cent discount for guilty pleas.

[46]              You  have been on EM  bail from around the end of January 2023—about    18 months—and the Crown says they are not aware of any breaches. It is also apparent you have been engaged in rehabilitation work.

[47]              I have seen alcohol and drug reports. The Crown says the report in March 2023 was not particularly encouraging, but the very recent update dated 12 July 2024, is a lot more encouraging. You have denied any use of methamphetamine since your release from prison. That was inconsistent with a result in March 2023, but the current drug test is clear. You have re-established your relationship with your parents. You have not really done any alcohol and drug interventions though, and that is something you were advised to do. But you say that you are motivated to change.

[48]Other matters are more encouraging:

(a)Letters of support confirming your status as a kaitiaki, hunting and providing kai to the  marae  for  various  events.  A  letter  from  Cathy Hawker who is the grandmother of one of your children. She provides a perspective of your lifestyle since you have been on EM bail. She says you are meth-free. I have also read a letter from your mother that speaks about your recovery as well.

(b)The pre-sentence report has quite a bit of information, and has an explanation from you about how you lost your way after a relationship breakdown and started using methamphetamine. But you are now a hands-on dad. That is confirmed by both of your parents who said that you were not always a good father, but since you have been on EM bail at their property, you have changed your lifestyle and your friendship group. They say that the time you spent in jail was a real wake up call for you. The kids come to the house most days, you have a good relationship with their mothers, and you have said that the children are your motivation to continue in a pro-social direction so you can be there for those tamariki. It also said in the pre-sentence report that you spoke with great empathy and concern about the victims and that you appeared genuine. You accepted full responsibility. The report writer assesses you as motivated to address your addictions. You have complied with EM bail. You have successfully completed a sentence of home detention before. The report considers you have made significant changes to your lifestyle and surrounded yourself with whānau who are pro-social and very supportive and they are here supporting you today. The report says that you are suitable for home detention but recommends imprisonment. Or, if home detention, they suggest judicial monitoring to give some additional oversight.

(c)I have seen the letter you have written. You have said this has been a pivotal point in your life, I think you are 31. In my experience as a Judge, a lot of men who have been in trouble while they have been aged in their 20s, get into their 30s, a lightbulb seems to go off and they realise there are two ways they can go. You have had that wakeup call and seem to be on the right path now. It does look as if you are a very different person from who you were two years ago, getting drawn into this very serious offending.

Sentence

[49]So, having said that, I am going to sentence you as follows:

(a)I am going to take the starting point that Isac J took at the indication of

three and a half years or 42 months.

Mr Bamford has urged on me a reduced starting point, because he says your level of involvement was less. I am not prepared to reduce the starting point further. You were given, and accepted, a sentence indication. In my view, Isac J correctly factored in all matters when he set the starting point as he did. Although you were not the main person, or even present, as Mr Tangirā was, you were still involved in the detention of three people who were detained over an extended period. Although the period you were involved in was more limited, you were still there supervising them and making sure they did not leave or use phones. You must have been aware of the injuries that had been caused to the primary victim. You continued to play your part until the end, although I accept that Mr Hemana was directing the whole show.

(b)From that starting point, there is a 25 per cent reduction for guilty pleas, that is 10 and a half months.

(c)I then look at matters that are personal to you. First, I do find there is  a causal connection, between your methamphetamine addiction, which is the reason for you getting involved in this offending. I also recognise that you have made lifestyle changes. You are motivated to address addiction, and to remain meth-free, but without really undertaking specific work to do so. People take different paths, but it is going to be something that you have to work on, probably forever. The sentence that I impose on you is going to have conditions that will really force you into some sort of intervention or counselling so that you are not just dealing with it on your own. I really urge you to take that opportunity because it is going to be ongoing for you as I have said, possibly for the rest of your life. You also have good rehabilitative

prospects in my view, and you have been remorseful. For those matters, I am prepared to  reduce  the  sentence  by  15  per  cent  which  is  six months. When I take those reductions off (an overall reduction of 17 months), it takes the sentence to 25 months.

(d)You have spent at least 18 months on EM bail without incident, it was restrictive and lengthy, I would apply a nine-month reduction for that.

(e)That takes the sentence down to 16 months’ imprisonment. I can look at alternatives to imprisonment. What I intend to do is convert that sentence to eight months’ home detention, with six months’ post- detention conditions.

[50]              Your pre-sentence report does not have home detention conditions in it, but I think that what they have put as release conditions are suitable home detention and post-detention conditions. They are about staying away from substances, attending assessment for alcohol and drug programmes, and any treatment that is directed by your Probation Officer. There are other requirements there about attending counselling and treatment, and any programmes that you are directed to do.

[51]              You will need to go straight home. Home detention will start today, and you will serve that sentence where you are currently on EM bail.

Ms Tessa Alford

[52]              Finally, Ms Alford, you pleaded guilty to being a party to kidnapping and to accessing a computer system for a dishonest purpose.

[53]              You accepted a sentence indication by Isac J that set the starting point at two years and 10 months’ imprisonment with a 25 per cent reduction for pleading guilty. You then accepted another sentence indication for your additional charges, being representative charges of offering to supply methamphetamine, supplying methamphetamine, offering to supply Ritalin, and selling cannabis. Justice Isac uplifted your starting point by 12 months for those charges and that brought the overall starting point to three years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

[54]              The Crown accepted that you were the least culpable in terms of your role in the kidnapping, but you did play an important part in being the connection between Mr Hemana and Mr Tangirā while it was all going on. It is accepted that you were under the thumb of Mr Hemana and likely intimidated by him.

[55]              The Crown has talked about the issues you had on bail—breaches at an early stage, arrest, readmission to bail, repeated breaches, a further arrest and a final warning, then more breaches. You were remanded in custody and you spent a couple of months in custody before you were granted EM bail. You had one major breach of EM bail early on but you were readmitted to bail the next day. You have then been on EM bail since December 2023, apparently without incident. But as the Crown points out, you have had a very large number of bail variations, including periods away with a reduced curfew.

[56]              The Crown also says there is not a lot of information about rehabilitative work that you have undertaken.

[57]The pre-sentence report says:

(a)You regret the harm from your offending. You wanted to participate in the restorative justice process and apologise. That has not happened. I

am not surprised that the victims were not interested, but you did make that offer.

(b)The pre-sentence report also says you have been offered some landscaping work in Hokitika.

(c)You have attended a Salvation Army programme in relation to drugs. You have been doing weekly video sessions with an alcohol and drug counsellor as well. You said you have not used methamphetamine for a year. You have also said that you have not drunk any more alcohol since the time that you breached your bail in December 2023.

[58]              Mr Zindel’s submissions are clearly aimed at home detention. He points out that you had no previous convictions, and you show a continued desire to rehabilitate yourself. He asks for a number of discounts to be made for previous good character, for remorse, for addiction, for difficulties in your background. All of the reductions he says I should make add up to 65 per cent, and on top of that, he says I should reduce the sentence by four months because you were in custody for two months after you breached your bail. That level of reduction is too high, but I am going to give you a number of reductions that do take you to a place where I can look at alternatives to imprisonment. And I am going to sentence you to home detention.

Sentence

[59]I am going to sentence you as follows:

(a)The starting point is three years and 10 months’ imprisonment or 46 months, and the reduction for guilty pleas of  25 per cent takes   11 and a half months off that starting point.

(b)For the fact that you had no previous convictions, I am prepared to make a reduction of five per cent—not has high as Mr Zindel suggests, and that is because you were consistently offending over an extended period, from January up towards the end of September 2022 when you were regularly dealing in various drugs, culminating in your

involvement in this very serious offending. That is another two-month reduction.

(c)I have looked at your other personal factors. I do take the view that your addiction has caused your offending. You have been a fairly low- level but reasonably busy drug dealer, as I would expect, to fund your own addiction. You have then got yourself involved with Mr Hemana’s much more serious and sinister offending. You have taken some steps towards rehabilitation and counselling that is ongoing. It is clear to me at least, that a lot more is required,  the same as I  have just  said  to Mr Wilson—it is something you are going to have to work on, probably forever. You have expressed remorse and you were willing to do restorative justice. For those matters, I would be prepared to apply a 15 per cent reduction.

(d)All of those reductions total 45 per cent or 21 months. That is a significant reduction but I do not consider any more is appropriate. In particular, you have not turned your life around to the extent that some of the others have. I think the journey for you is going to be a slower one.

(e)Those reductions take the sentence to 25 months’ imprisonment.

(f)Then I look at the time you have spent on restrictive bail. It is around 10 and a half months on EM bail. Apart from the early misstep, you seem to have been compliant. The bail variations appear to be mainly for contact with your children. That is very important, and I do not consider you should be penalised for that.  I think a  reduction of   four months is available.

(g)That takes your sentence to 21 months’ imprisonment. The address where you are on EM bail is available and the occupants are pro-social and supportive. Police do not have any issues and the pre-sentence report says no compliance issues are anticipated.

(h)I convert that 21 months end sentence to 10 and a half months’ home detention.

(i)I have been considering how to take into account the two months that you spent in custody. I do not consider that a four-month reduction for that is appropriate, particularly when it was the result of constant breaches after warnings when you were not able at the time to stick to your bail conditions. But I would reduce the length of home detention by one month to reflect that.

(j)That takes the sentence to nine and a half months’ home detention.

There will be six months’ post-detention conditions after that.

(k)I am also going to judicially monitor your sentence, as with the others, to keep an eye on your progress. That gives some accountability for you. You will be accountable for me. I will get a report about you every three months. The home detention conditions are in the pre- sentence report and they are about alcohol and drug counselling, and other counselling that might help you. I urge you to take full advantage of whatever programmes you can get on. A lot of people really benefit from the programmes that Corrections, or your Probation Officer, can get you on. Those conditions will apply during the nine and half months’ home detention and for the six months after.

(l)The nine and half months’ home detention will be on the kidnapping, supplying methamphetamine, offering to supply methamphetamine. There will be three months’ home detention on the other charges of supplying cannabis, supplying Ritalin and accessing the computer.

Grau J

Solicitors:

Crown Law, Wellington WRMK Lawyers, Whangarei Zindels, Nelson

cc:        E J Riddell, Nelson

A J D Bamford, Nelson