R v Williams

[2017] NZHC 1592

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-044-003470 [2017] NZHC 1592

THE QUEEN

v

ADRIENNE NATALIE WILLIAMS

Hearing:	11 July 2017
Counsel:	HG Clark for Crown LO Smith for Prisoner
Judgment:	11 July 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Meredith Connell, Auckland.

LO Smith, Auckland.

R v WILLIAMS [2017] NZHC 1592 [11 July 2017]

[1]      Ms Williams, you appear for sentence for possessing material intending it be used to manufacture methamphetamine; possessing GBL, a Class B controlled drug; receiving stolen property; possessing methamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug; and driving with blood containing evidence of methamphetamine use.

[2]      In August 2016 you were in a relationship with a defendant who allegedly made a large amount of methamphetamine.   He is yet to be tried.   On 17 August

2016 you helped him move equipment from a storage unit.  That equipment was to be used in connection with the manufacture of methamphetamine.   On 18 August you purchased two kilograms of caustic soda which you knew your partner intended to use to make methamphetamine.

[3]      The next day, Police executed a search warrant at the house occupied by the two of you.  They found the caustic soda as well as 250 millilitres of GBL, hence the GBL charge.    Police also found significant evidence of methamphetamine manufacture: a Parr bomb containing over a kilogram of methamphetamine; a saucepan containing 1.2 kilograms of that drug; and $20,200 in cash.  You face no charges  in  relation  to  these  discoveries  because  the  Crown  accepts  unlike  your partner, you did not make methamphetamine.  And nor have you been charged as someone who helped in the making of methamphetamine, even though the agreed facts arguably support that charge.

[4]      On 11 November 2016, you were found unconscious in the driver’s seat of a car travelling very slowly on State Highway 1.  You were taken to hospital.  Your blood  contained  methamphetamine.     You  were  found  in  the  same  state  on

25 February 2017, again in a car, on this occasion stopped at a red light. A point bag of methamphetamine was in the front seat.   The car had been stolen a few days earlier. You told Police you had borrowed it from a friend.

[5]      Your most serious offence is your first:  possession of caustic soda intending it be used to manufacture methamphetamine.  The parties agree the appropriate start point for this offending lies between 21 and 24 months’ imprisonment.1    I adopt a

start point of 21 months’ imprisonment.   The proximity of the anticipated manufacture aggravates the offending as does your help to move related equipment, but as against these features, caustic soda is itself lawful and widely available.  And, the plan to make methamphetamine was not yours but your partner’s.  Care must be taken not to impose a sentence for party liability to the manufacture of methamphetamine because again, you face no such charge.

[6]      The Crown submits your possession of GBL should attract an uplift of one month.  It accepts the drug was for your own consumption.  Your lawyer agrees with this analysis.

[7]      The balance of your offending is not without seriousness.  It was committed while you were on bail for the August offending.  Receiving a stolen car can attract a prison sentence between six and 18 months;2 and then there are the other offences in relation to methamphetamine.   Driving under the influence of that drug can cause serious harm—or worse.

[8]      I adopt a global uplift of seven months to avoid a disproportionately severe sentence, to which I add another month for your previous drugs offending.   More about that shortly. This produces an overall start point of 29 months’ imprisonment.

[9]      You are 35.  You led an apparently law abiding life until January 2013, when you possessed a small amount of methamphetamine.  You did so again in May 2015. So too cannabis in June that year.  You refused to provide a blood sample in July the same year.   I said “apparently” earlier because you admit using methamphetamine from the age of 21, and more heavily from the age of 28.  You also used GBL daily while in a relationship with the co-defendant.

[10]     This offending, your criminal history and acknowledged drug use all imply a significant problem with controlled drugs.  I am told you accept as much, and want treatment. The pre-sentence report endorses a rehabilitative approach to sentencing.

[11]     As to mitigating features, you pleaded guilty to the August 2016 offending on

3  May  2017.3      Your  pleas  were  entered  after  callover  but  before  trial.    The

25 February charges were laid that day, and the November 2016 charge was laid on

1 April 2017.  You pleaded guilty to all three on 9 May 2017.  The parties submit a discount of 20 percent is appropriate.

[12]     That level of discount is a little high given the time until plea, particularly in relation to the August offending, which is the most serious.  It is important discounts in this context are applied consistently; consensus as between litigants is not the test. Seventeen  percent  is  appropriate,  which  leads  to  a  nominal  end  sentence  of

24 months’ imprisonment.

[13]     Mrs Smith, your lawyer, urges me to impose home detention so you may complete a course at Odyssey House designed to deal with your drug problem.  She argues if you complete that course, you may not offend again, because drug use lies at the heart of your offending.  For the Crown, Ms Clark adopts a neutral stance.  She reminds me of the breadth of my discretion in this area.  Fortuitously, a place in a programme at Odyssey House is available from 2 pm today.

[14]     I am satisfied home detention is appropriate.  Your offending is serious, but not so serious as to preclude home detention.  Rehabilitation within the context of home detention  is  likely to  diminish  the risk of further offending.   And, home detention is a punishment. A sentence of home detention is in the public interest.

[15]     You have been in custody for approximately four and a half months.  That must be deducted from the sentence because unlike a sentence of imprisonment, a deduction cannot be done administratively.

[16]     Before dealing with your sentence, I wish to make one or two observations about the Department of Corrections’ preparation of reports in connection with you. Because it was not clear to me how long you may be at Odyssey House, I invited the Department  of  Corrections  to  assess  the  suitability  of  an  identified  address  or

addresses in the event your time at Odyssey House ended before the expiry of your

3      These charges were laid on 7 September 2016.

sentence.   The Department instead prepared a report identifying why intensive supervision would be a more suitable sentence.   It otherwise failed to conduct the inquiry I asked it to make.

[17]     Judges call for reports for good reason.   It is not helpful when an agency unilaterally decides to pose an alternative question to that asked of it, and otherwise ignores the posed one.

[18]     Forgive me for departing from the facts of your case, to which I now return. In relation to the charge of possessing caustic soda intending it be used to manufacture methamphetamine, I impose a term of six months’ home detention. That sentence is to be served at Odyssey House, 56 Bollard Avenue, Avondale.  In the event your course there concludes before the expiry of that sentence, you will need to apply to amend the sentence to take in an alternative address.

[19]     I make other orders as well.  Under s 129 of the Land Transport Act 1998, the car you were in is confiscated.   And, pursuant to s 65 of the same Act, you are indefinitely disqualified from driving, holding or obtaining a driver’s licence.   In relation to the balance of charges, you are sentenced to home detention for a period of two months.

[20]     The overall sentence is one of six months’ home detention.

……………………………..

Downs J