Police v Power [2016] NZDC 17280 (6 September 2016)

Last Updated: 31 January 2017

_{EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED.}

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU

CRI-2016-092-008380 [2016] NZDC 17280

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Prosecutor

v

ROB POWER

_Defendant

Hearing:	6 September 2016
Appearances:	V Segar for the Prosecutor S Tait for the Defendant
Judgment:	6 September 2016

_{NOTES OF JUDGE J C MOSES ON SENTENCING}

[1] Mr Power, you are for sentence before me today on a large number of charges. You had come before me earlier for a sentence indication on 8 July. You came before me along with two co-defendants, and these sentencing remarks need to be read in conjunction with those sentencing indication notes that I had issued.

[2] The very brief facts are, however, that the Counties Manukau Police commenced an operation to target cannabis suppliers in the Counties Manukau area and it was established that you had been sourcing large quantities of cannabis which were being broken down into smaller quantities and then distributed. That has led you here for sentence today. I gave you a sentence indication and in that indication I

took into account the leading case of R v Terewi1. I expressed my surprise at the

_{lower level that the police were in fact pitching your involvement at. However, I}

1 _{R v Terewi [1999] NZCA 92; [1999] 3 NZLR 62 (CA)}

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v ROB POWER [2016] NZDC 17280 [6 September 2016]

took so far as the selling and supplying cannabis charges, a starting point of three and a half years’ imprisonment.

[3] There was an uplift that I had indicated for the remaining charges, including a charge of possession of equipment, which warranted an eight month uplift which took the overall starting point to that of 50 months or four years, two months’ imprisonment. I had indicated that you would be entitled to a discount for youth of no more than 10 percent, but that there may be some additional discount for personal factors. I noted that personal factors play a limited role in sentencing for drug- dealing offences. However, I did indicate that there could be a possible further reduction and I also then indicated a 25 percent reduction if you were to enter guilty pleas. The end indication that I gave was somewhere between two and a half and two years, 10 months’ imprisonment.

[4] Mr Tait on your behalf today has pointed to some personal matters including the death of your grandfather which was a time when this offending took place. You had found it difficult to cope with, and your upbringing was, as I understand, in a gang-related family. He also points to the fact that you had been on a 24 hour curfew for a lengthy period without there being any apparent breaches, and urges me to reduce what I had come to, which was a two year, 10 month end point, with the possibility of further reduction.

[5] I am persuaded that there is room for further reduction from the starting points that I have given to you. Firstly, I am prepared to give you not only a

10 percent discount for your youth but a further 10 percent discount for your personal circumstances. That amounts to a 20 percent reduction from the starting point which reduces the overall starting point to that of 40 months’ imprisonment. From that I am prepared to give you an additional four month reduction for you being on tight bail conditions, which reduces the overall starting point a further period to that of 36 months or three years’ imprisonment. From that you are entitled to a 25 percent reduction which amounts to nine months which gives an end sentence of 27 months or two years, three months’ imprisonment. Because that is more than two years’ imprisonment a sentence of home detention does not come into play.

[6] Therefore, for the reasons that I have outlined in the sentence indication and the additional reasons that I have indicated today, in relation to all charges other than the charge of possession of equipment and the charge of driving while suspended, which was a separate offence, you are today convicted and sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment. In relation to the driving charge you are simply convicted and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of six months commencing today’s date, 6 September. In relation to the possession of equipment I am simply going to convict and discharge.

[7] For the reasons I have indicated previously and today, Mr Power, the end sentence is that of two years and three months’ imprisonment. You are a young man. You will still be a young man when you are released. I am aware that you do have some family support and I am sure that family support will continue during your term of imprisonment and beyond. It is important that you use the time that you spend in custody to address the issues that have led you to stand here today. The Parole Board will no doubt take into account any efforts that you make during your time in prison when they consider your release.

J C Moses

District Court Judge