R v Wilson - [2015] NZHC 706

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-225 [2015] NZHC 706

THE QUEEN

v

SOPHIA WILSON

Hearing: 14 April 2015

Appearances:

T Refoy-Butler for the Crown
D Young for Ms Wilson

Date:

14 April 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF THOMAS J

R v WILSON [2015] NZHC 706 [14 April 2015]

Introduction

[1] Ms Wilson you appear before me for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury of possession of pseudoephedrine for supply, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

[2] Two days following your verdict, you breached your bail and went on the run with Mr Davoren, who played a major role in this and associated offending. He was your partner at the time. You failed to attend at your original sentencing date of
30 October 2014. On 5 March 2015, you and Mr Davoren were located in Hamilton and subsequently arrested.

Background facts

[3] At the time of the offending, you were in a relationship with Mr Davoren. Between December 2011 and January 2012, Mr Davoren kept you updated on his methamphetamine manufacturing activities. You played no active role at that time.

[4] On 30 June 2012, Mr Davoren arranged for you to visit an address to uplift “2 and a bit” sets of Contac NT, which each contain 90 mg of pseudoephedrine. You agreed to uplift the drugs and to supply them to another person that same evening for “20”. The Crown’s case at trial was that this referred to $20,000. The Crown’s case was that “2 and a bit” sets of Contac NT would contain at least 180 grams of pseudoephedrine, which could be converted into 90 to 135 grams of methamphetamine.

[5] It was not in dispute at trial that you had possession of the drugs that evening. You maintained your innocence, saying you did not know what was inside the bag you picked up. The jury rejected your version of the events. The text message was clear as to what you were to collect and its value. Indeed, the evidence was that you had been kept informed, as I say, of Mr Davoren’s illegal activities.

Approach to sentencing

[6] I now need to assess an appropriate starting point to reflect the nature and seriousness of your offending and your culpability. I then consider whether any adjustments should be made in respect of any matters which relate to you personally.

[7] I must also take into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in the Sentencing Act 2002. That includes the need to hold you accountable. When the Court sentences offenders for dealing commercially in controlled drugs, the primary purpose is deterrence. Because of the harm done in the community by methamphetamine, which is the end-product of this type of offending, denunciation is an important purpose. As is the need to promote in you a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgement of, that harm.

[8] In your case, the relevant principles of sentencing are the gravity of…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson [2015] NZHC 706
Case: [2015] NZHC 706
Decision Date: 14 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sophia Wilson was convicted of possession of pseudoephedrine for supply and appeared before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing. The offence carried a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. The court had to decide on an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering the nature and seriousness of the offence and Sophia's culpability. The court also had to take into account Sophia's personal circumstances and the purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in the Sentencing Act 2002.

The court began by examining the nature and seriousness of the offence, considering the harm done in the community by methamphetamine. The court found that Sophia played a crucial role in the supply of pseudoephedrine, an essential ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The court determined that the appropriate starting point for the sentence was two years and four months' imprisonment, taking into account the amount of drugs involved and the commercial value of the methamphetamine that could be produced from the pseudoephedrine.

The court then considered Sophia's personal circumstances and whether any adjustments should be made to the starting point. The court found that Sophia deserved a modest discount of two months for her previous good character but did not consider her pregnancy or vulnerability to her partner as mitigating factors. The court also found that Sophia had not shown any tangible demonstration of remorse for her offending, despite maintaining her innocence.

The court concluded that Sophia was not eligible for home detention and that imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence. The court sentenced Sophia to a term of imprisonment of two years and two months, with the possibility of parole after serving one third of her sentence.

Orders