IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE
CRI-2021-070-4221
[2023] NZHC 1719
THE KING v
FREDERICK WHARE
Hearing: 29 June 2023 Appearances:
C A Bourke for the Crown W T Nabney for Mr Whare
Judgment:
29 June 2023
SENTENCING REMARKS OF HARLAND J
Introduction
[1] Mr Whare, as I said at the outset, there is a process and I am going to have to go through quite a few things in my sentencing decision so I just ask you to bear with me while I do that. And because of the distance, it is hard to engage with you directly but these remarks are addressed to you and you will get, of course, a copy of my written remarks in due course.
[2] Mr Whare, you appear before the Court today for sentence, having pleaded guilty to 57 charges arising out of the Police operation codenamed Operation Silk.
[3]The charges comprise:
R v WHARE [2023] NZHC 1719 [29 June 2023]
(a) 15 charges of conspiring to supply methamphetamine,1 those charges carry a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment on each charge;
(b) 8 charges of possessing methamphetamine for the purposes of supply,2 those carry a maximum penalty on each charge of life imprisonment;
(c) 18 charges of supplying methamphetamine,3 which also carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment;
(d) three charges of conspiring to sell cannabis,4 which have a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment;
(e) one charge of supplying cannabis,5 that has a maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment;
(f) one charge of unlawfully possessing a prohibited firearm,6 which carries of penalty of five years’ imprisonment, maximum;
(g) one charge of unlawfully possessing a pistol,7 the maximum penalty for that is three years and/or a $4,000 fine;
(h) two charges of possessing cannabis for sale,8 that has an eight year maximum imprisonment available;
(i) two charges of possession of cannabis9 which has a maximum of three months or a $500 fine;
1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2A) - Charges 56, 57, 98, 102, 103, 113, 118, 138, 145, 155, 161,
164, 166, 169 and 198, Crown Charge Notice for resolution purposes dated 18 July 2022.
At sentencing it was noted there were 16 charges, when there were in fact 15. A charge withdrawn at arraignment was inadvertently included. This has no impact on the sentence delivered.
2 Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2) - Charges 58, 62, 72, 73, 93, 104, 147 and 167.
At sentencing it was noted there were nine charges, when there were in fact 8. A charge withdrawn at arraignment was inadvertently included. This has no impact on the sentence delivered.
3 Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2) - Charges 59, 63, 74, 94, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 123,
130, 146, 158, 159, 160, 162, 165 and 168.
At sentencing it was noted there were 21 charges, when there were in fact 18. Charges withdrawn at arraignment and at…
Continue reading R v Whare
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Whare [2023] NZHC 1719
- Case
- [2023] NZHC 1719
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court assessed the seriousness of Whare's methamphetamine and cannabis offenses, noting his active role and the quantities involved. The starting point for his methamphetamine offenses was set at 10 years' imprisonment, acknowledging his significant role and the amount of drugs he dealt. The court also considered Whare's involvement in firearms offenses and other minor charges. Various mitigating factors were taken into account, including Whare's early guilty plea, his addiction issues, and his efforts at rehabilitation while on electronic monitoring bail. The court imposed a sentence of seven years and eight months' imprisonment, with all sentences running concurrently, aiming to reflect the seriousness of the offenses while considering Whare's personal circumstances and potential for rehabilitation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.