R v Abdul-Majit [2016] NZDC 17438 (8 September 2016)

Last Updated: 1 February 2017

_{EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED.}

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU

CRI-2016-092-008199 [2016] NZDC 17438

THE QUEEN

v

_{MOHAMAD'NAZJIB ABDUL-MAJIT}

Hearing:	8 September 2016
Appearances:	H Benson-Pope for the Crown P Boylan for the Defendant
Judgment:	8 September 2016

_{NOTES OF JUDGE S PATEL ON SENTENCING}

[1] Mohamad Abdul-Majit, you appear for sentence in front of me after pleading guilty of one charge of importing methamphetamine. That carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. In sentencing you today I have taken into account a body of material including the agreed summary of facts, submissions made by your lawyer both in written form to me, which I have read earlier today, and in Court today as well as written and oral submissions from the Crown. I have also had regard to the provision of advice to courts report, known as a PAC report, and that was compiled following a discussion with a probation officer with you whilst you have been in custody.

[2] The brief facts are that in February 2016 an undercover police officer was deployed in the Gisborne area to obtain information pertaining to the sale and supply of methamphetamine in that area. As a result of that investigation the police

_{identified a person by the name of Thomas Cheng as a methamphetamine supplier}

R v MOHAMAD'NAZJIB ABDUL-MAJIT [2016] NZDC 17438 [8 September 2016]

in the Gisborne area. Whilst in Rotorua Mr Cheng arranged by telephone and social media for two Singaporean nationals, including yourself, to import methamphetamine into New Zealand. Mr Cheng suggested that you should swallow

200 grams of methamphetamine and bring it into New Zealand for $4000. However you refused to do that.

[3] At about 6.00 pm on 1 March you arrived at Auckland International Airport from Singapore where you were met and detained by New Zealand Customs. You were searched and subsequent to that search it was found that you had concealed

100 grams of methamphetamine in your underwear and you were subsequently processed. You were interviewed by New Zealand Customs and admitted to importing methamphetamine because you needed the money.

[4] I have referred to the pre-sentence report. I will just briefly touch upon some of the points that are noted in that. You agreed that you decided to import methamphetamine to alleviate financial pressure relating to your business and I have had regard to written and oral submissions from Mr Boylan in that regard. You regretted your actions to the writer of the probation report. You now understand the negative consequences of methamphetamine and you say that having regard to seeing the first-hand damage that it has on other people incarcerated along with you and I also take into account, in that regard, the letter that you have written that I have seen in Court today.

[5] You are a Singaporean national. You have a wife and a nine year old daughter. I also understand that you look after your mother and your incarceration has caused considerable upset and hurt to them as well as causing financial difficulties because you are the sole breadwinner for the family. I also note that you have no support here and that given your family is in Singapore and a term of imprisonment which I intend to impose today will not be without considerable difficulty, given that circumstance. I note that you have no previous convictions in Singapore.

[6] I have heard, as I say, submissions on behalf of Mr Benson-Pope for the

Crown. Very briefly, the Crown submit a starting point of five years’ imprisonment

and I note that a co-offender by the name of Ms Ryan accepted a sentence indication with a starting point of five years’ imprisonment and discounts of one year each for personal circumstances and a guilty plea. On your behalf Mr Boylan refers to the factual background, the fact that you were a mule which he says is at the lower end of culpability. There was financial need. He submits a starting point of four years’ imprisonment, a discount of 25 percent for plea of guilty, an additional discount of

25 percent for personal factors with a final sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment.

[7] In sentencing you today I am required to take into account the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002, Mr Abdul-Majit, and they include holding you accountable for the harm done to the community or potentially done to the community because of your offending, to denounce your conduct and deter both you from doing this again and what we call general deterrence, to send a signal to other people not to import drugs into this country. In terms of the principles, I have got to take into account the seriousness or gravity of the offending in comparison to other cases. I have got to assess the degree of your culpability; in that regard I do note that it is not disputed that you were essentially a mule, and I have got to take into account the seriousness of your offending in comparison to other similar types of offences, be consistent with other cases also but to impose the least restrictive outcome that is consistent with the facts of this case.

[8] The sentencing process is this, Mr Abdul-Majit, that I commence with determining a starting point and that is having regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending itself. Then I make any adjustments for personal circumstances. Then I make a further adjustment for the timing of your plea of guilty. So in this regard, in terms of the starting point, assessing the aggravating features I take into account that there was not an insubstantial quantity of methamphetamine involved and also that your role was part of a broader scheme of offending. Taking into account all of the factors that have been submitted by both counsel, I consider an appropriate starting point is a sentence of imprisonment of 54

months. I have had regard to the case of R v Ellis1. That involved offending

involving 131 grams of methamphetamine and that involved a starting point of five years’ imprisonment so again I reiterate I consider, in comparison to that case, a

1 R v Ellis HC Wellington CRI-2007-085-6245, 30 October 2009

lower starting point is justified. Therefore I again say that starting point of 54 months.

[9] In terms of an adjustment for personal aggravating and mitigating circumstances, there is nothing in your personal background that requires an uplift of sentence. I note, however, that in terms of positive aspects that there was an immediate acceptance of responsibility by you on being apprehended. You have shown genuine remorse. In that regard I take into account the comments you make to the writer of the pre-sentence report and also what I have seen by way of your letter of apology. You come to Court with previous good character and I also take into account that this term of imprisonment is going to be particularly difficult for you, given that you have no family support here and that you are a foreign national, and in that regard I give you a discount of 12 months which brings down the sentence of imprisonment to 42 months. I then make a reduction of 12 months for the timing of your plea. It was at an early opportunity, so the final sentence is one of

30 months’ imprisonment.

[10] So, Mr Abdul-Majit, that is your final sentence today. I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 30 months.

S Patel

District Court Judge