R v Beveridge [2016] NZDC 21697 (2 November 2016)

Last Updated: 31 January 2017

_{EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED.}

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON

CRI-2013-085-011712 [2016] NZDC 21697

THE QUEEN

v

_{PAUL WILLIAM BEVERIDGE}

Hearing:	2 November 2016
Appearances:	A Winsley for the Crown C W J Stevenson for the Defendant
Judgment:	2 November 2016

_{NOTES OF JUDGE I G MILL ON SENTENCING}

[1] What I am going to do is sentence you, of course, today, and I am going to repeat a lot of what I said the other day with the sentence indication. The reason for that is this is now the formal sentencing and it is a public hearing and I have to record what the reasons for the sentence are that I will give you.

[2] One of the things that has exercised my mind a little bit since the sentence indication is whether or not I have given sufficient credit for the fact that in the final wash-up of these charges, you no longer face the importing and conspiracy charge that you faced but you are guilty, through your plea of guilty, to possession of methamphetamine for supply and for, in fact, supplying methamphetamine, and I think the supply of the methamphetamine was to associates on the day that the

_{search occurred.}

R v PAUL WILLIAM BEVERIDGE [2016] NZDC 21697 [2 November 2016]

[3] I just preface my comments by saying that there is some force in the suggestion in the references that I have now received from various people and I must say, these are very impressive references. It is hard to think of a case previously where I had such impressive references given about a person and how you fit into your community and contribute to that community, and the regard that you are held in by the people in that community, and I guess the shock that they experienced when they found that you are involved with this very serious and dangerous drug.

[4] The suggestion in those references that you are perhaps a little easily influenced and became involved in something that was out of character has some force. Obviously, you are not guilty of these other offences but obviously, you transported the package from Tawa to your address. This was the package that was, of course, originally containing two kilograms of the drug and you allowed your address to be used in some way for Mr Pham, at least, to receive the drug and unpackage it.

[5] Having said that, given that you were outside when the police arrived and not seemingly intimately involved with the unpackaging at that point, it seems that your involvement was far less than Mr Pham, but I am not in a position to punish you for that involvement and I do not intend to. It is just that I am saying that you have obviously become involved in something perhaps out of your depth and these are the consequences, the consequences of you having methamphetamine and being prepared to be involved in that scene.

[6] So turning to the sentencing itself, you are here for sentence on possession of methamphetamine for supply, and supplying methamphetamine. As I previously said, you had this involvement with the package and it was because of that that the police searched your property and as a result of the search of the property, they found about eight grams of methamphetamine, I think in your bedroom, and of course there was the additional amount of about five grams of methamphetamine in your house in the package that was being unwrapped at the time.

[7] Obviously your role in these matters was not as great as others and I have already mentioned that, and I note that when the police arrived, the forensic evidence

also places Mr Pham with the package at the table. He was hiding in the lounge when the police arrived. The methamphetamine that later was discovered by the police is part of some that you had supplied to others earlier in the day, and so you are guilty of being in possession, either singly or jointly, of about 14 grams of methamphetamine, including the eight grams in your room.

[8] Having said that, the usual trappings of supply were not present in this case. There was no evidence, for example, of your sending of text messages and offering to supply the drug. There was no equipment or lists found that suggested you were a commercial dealer, so you were a supplier of the drug obviously, and you were in possession of a sizeable amount of the drug and I say that because the law provides that if you are in possession of five grams of methamphetamine, then you are presumed to be a dealer, and eight grams of methamphetamine is far more, in my view, that you need to have if you are using it personally yourself.

[9] The guideline case for sentencing is the case of R v Fatu1and this offending falls within what is known as band 2 of that case, where the guideline sentence is three to nine years’ imprisonment for amounts of methamphetamine or class A drug from five grams through to 250 grams, and that is an enormous spread of weights, of course. So there have been various cases quoted to me during the sentence indication but clearly, five years’ imprisonment for what you are guilty of is very much at the top end of the starting point and as I said in my sentence indication, a starting point of less than that is justified in your case. A starting point of four years’

_{imprisonment is adopted by me.}

[10] I notice in the Probation report you said you thought that was a bit harsh and that is an honest enough comment by you that the starting point would be as high as that, and I can accept that that is your view and an honestly-held view but again,

_{those are the consequences of having this drug in your possession in these quantities.}

[11] The real focus of the submission today by Mr Stevenson is what deductions should be made as a result of your character and your plea of guilty and any remorse

_{that you have shown, and I think the submission is well-made by Mr Stevenson in}

1 R v Fatu [2005] NZCA 278; [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA)

the circumstances. As I said before, you were borne along somewhat on the tide of applications brought by Mr Pham, very proper applications in the circumstances, but your case was really delayed while these admissibility issues were examined on the application of Mr Pham, and given in the final wash-up that you faced these particular charges and not the others, it is hardly reasonable in the circumstances that you would have pleaded guilty earlier than you did. Because of that, I am going to allow in your case a discount of 25 percent for your plea of guilty, rather than

18 percent.

[12] As far as your personal circumstances are concerned, I have already mentioned those briefly. They are reflected in the references that I have had and they are very impressive references indeed. However, the Court of Appeal has said on several occasions that when you are dealing with cases of drug dealing, particularly of class A, then a discount of 5 percent is around about the maximum that you are able to receive.

[13] In my view, the discount that you should receive in total would be around about 30 percent, which is more than I indicated before, which would take the sentence down to two years and 10 months’ imprisonment, and I am prepared in the circumstances to allow a very small deduction from that for your remorse because I am sure you feel sorry for what you have done but, on the other hand, in these sorts of cases, supplying the drug is serious, whatever the circumstances, and later being sorry about that is no consolation to people who have become addicted to the drug.

[14] So in respect of both of these cases, you are now sentenced. You are convicted and sentenced to two years and nine months’ imprisonment.

I G Mill

District Court Judge