The Queen v Webb [2008] NZCA 487 (18 November 2008)

Last Updated: 26 November 2008

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA383/2008

[2008] NZCA 487

THE QUEEN

v

CHRISTOPHER DUNCAN WEBB

Hearing: 12 November 2008

Court: Glazebrook, Wild and Simon France JJ

Counsel: M J Levett for Appellant
S J Mount for Crown

Judgment: 18 November 2008 at 4.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Glazebrook J)

Introduction

[1] In February 2006 Mr Webb admitted manufacturing approximately a kilogram of methamphetamine. The street value of this quantity of methamphetamine is around $1m. Mr Webb said that he had sold it for around $400,000.
[2] A search of Mr Webb’s property revealed a methamphetamine laboratory (including raw materials sufficient to manufacture a further 995 grams of methamphetamine) and a number of other items (including firearms) consistent with large-scale drug manufacture.
[3] Mr Webb was scheduled to be tried on 23 October 2007. He was on bail but absconded just before the trial date. He was located on 26 February 2008 and pleaded guilty to a seven-count indictment on 2 April 2008.
[4] On 17 June 2008 Wylie J sentenced Mr Webb to 12 and a half years imprisonment, with a minimum period of half that term: six years and three months.
[5] Mr Webb appeals on the grounds that:

(a) The sentence was manifestly excessive, as insufficient credit was given for the guilty pleas and rehabilitative efforts;

(b) The Judge should not have imposed a minimum period of imprisonment.

Was the sentence manifestly excessive?

[6] Mr Webb (quite rightly) does not contest the starting point adopted by the Judge of 14 years imprisonment. The Judge decided that Mr Webb’s offending fell into Band Four of R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 at [43] (CA). The starting point chosen was in the overlap area between Band Three and Band Four.
[7] The Judge then gave an 18 month (approximately 11 per cent) discount for the mitigating features, being the guilty pleas and Mr Webb’s attempts at rehabilitation. Mr Levett, on behalf of Mr Webb, submits that this allowance was insufficient. We do not agree.
[8] The guilty pleas were very late and in the face of overwhelming evidence. Mr Webb had also absconded before trial. This Court in R v MacKenzie CA317/97 30 October 1997 upheld a decision to give no discount at all for guilty pleas in similar circumstances.
[9] Further, while Mr Webb’s attempts at rehabilitation while in custody are to his credit, personal circumstances must count for little where the offending is of such a serious character as in this case.

Should a minimum period of imprisonment have been imposed?

[10] Mr Webb also submitted that Wylie J should not have imposed a minimum period of imprisonment. He has, however, been able to point to no error of principle on the Judge’s part.
[11] The offending in this case was clearly very serious. The Judge was quite justified in considering that deterrence and denunciation required a minimum period of imprisonment to be imposed.

Result

[12] The appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington