Steffe v Police - [2014] NZHC 980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-14 [2014] NZHC 980

BETWEEN
PHILIP ANDREW STEFFE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 12 May 2014

Appearances:

J F Mather for Appellant
J MacGibbon and T Hu for Respondent

Judgment:

12 May 2014

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

PHILIP ANDREW STEFFE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 980 [12 May 2014]

[1] Mr Steffe pleaded guilty in the District Court to one charge of importing the Class B controlled drug Gamma-Butyrolactone (“GBL”). On 19 December 2013, Judge Ronayne sentenced Mr Steffe to two years four months imprisonment on that charge.1 Mr Steffe appeals against sentence on the basis that the Judge erred in principle in several respects, and that this produced an end sentence that was manifestly excessive.

The facts

[2] The facts giving rise to the offending were contained in a summary of facts that was the subject of considerable negotiation between the parties. This records that between 15 January 2012 and 18 July 2012, Mr Steffe made several importations of a product from the United States of America called EZFlow Tip Blender. This is a nail softening product produced in the United States, and generally contains 70 to 80 per cent GBL. Without alteration, it may be used as a drug of the so called “date rape” type commonly known as Fantasy.

[3] The summary records that GBL was contained in 15 such importations, and that Mr Steffe thereby imported a total of 9.5 litres of the drug. He sold the drug to an unknown associate.

The structure of the sentence

[4] The Judge considered that the offending required a starting point of three years six months imprisonment. He then reduced that sentence by six months to reflect the fact that Mr Steffe had been subject to onerous curfew conditions for a considerable period prior to sentence. He then applied a discount of 20 per cent to reflect Mr Steffe’s guilty plea. Finally, he applied another small discount to provide Mr Steffe with the least restrictive outcome in the circumstances. This produced an
end sentence of two years four months imprisonment.

1 R v Steffe DC Auckland CRI-2012-004-017191, 19 December 2013.

The appeal

[5] On appeal, counsel for Mr Steffe contends that the Judge applied a starting point that was too high having regard to the circumstances of the offending. He also submits that the Judge gave Mr Steffe insufficient credit for his guilty plea, and for remorse that he demonstrated following his arrest.

Starting point

[6] This issue needs to be considered having regard to the background against which the Judge sentenced Mr Steffe. On 18 April 2013, Judge Ronayne conducted a sentence indication hearing at Mr Steffe’s request. At that time, the summary of facts recorded that Mr Steffe had made 33 individual importations of GBL and that he had imported just under 20.5 litres of the drug. The Judge considered that the offending fell within the category of offending identified…

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 Steffe v Police

Details

AGLC: Steffe v Police [2014] NZHC 980
Case: [2014] NZHC 980
Decision Date: 12 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Steffe appealed against his sentence for importing a controlled drug, Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL), from the United States of America. Mr. Steffe had imported 9.5 litres of GBL in 15 separate importations and sold it to an unknown associate. The District Court sentenced him to two years and four months imprisonment, and he appealed on the grounds that the starting point was too high and the discount for his guilty plea was too low. He also claimed the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Crown argued that the starting point was appropriate and that the sentence was not excessive.

The court considered the starting point applied by the District Court was too high. The court found that the appropriate starting point would have been around three years imprisonment. The court concluded that the discount for the guilty plea was appropriate at 25%, despite the delay between the sentence indication hearing and the plea. The court found that the end sentence of two years and four months imprisonment was manifestly excessive and should be reduced to one year and eleven months imprisonment.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of two years and four months imprisonment was quashed. In its place, the court substituted a sentence of one year and eleven months imprisonment. The court also noted that a sentence of home detention would not be sufficient to meet the sentencing principles of deterrence, denunciation and accountability.

Orders