R v King [2016] NZDC 24275 (29 November 2016)

Last Updated: 21 February 2017

_{EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED.}

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT NAPIER

CRI-2016-020-002248 [2016] NZDC 24275

THE QUEEN

v

_{TAWHIRI KING}

Hearing:	29 November 2016
Appearances:	C Stuart for the Crown W Hawkins for the Defendant
Judgment:	29 November 2016

_{NOTES OF JUDGE A J ADEANE ON SENTENCING}

[1] The defendant appears for sentence today on three separate groups of charges. The first involves importation of methamphetamine on six occasions, of amphetamine on three occasions, of MDMA and cannabis resin. Coupled with this are offers to supply methamphetamine on multiple occasions, one of which involved a single offer of 28 grams at a price of $10,000. It can be seen that this is not offending on a small scale by any means.

[2] It is common ground that the drug charges should be grouped together for the purpose of setting both a starting point and an end sentence. There is not so much common ground about what that starting point ought to be.

[3] There are then charges of burglary and receiving, two dwelling houses involved and substantial property stolen, mostly electronic in nature. As I

R v TAWHIRI KING [2016] NZDC 24275 [29 November 2016]

understand it, to the extent that it was recovered, it was recovered damaged and unusable.

[4] Finally, in parallel with the burglary the defendant has used a document for pecuniary advantage on a number of occasions. The total amount obtained being

$3300. Again it is not a small amount.

[5] The defendant’s personal circumstances are outlined in the probation report. Of course in this class of case they receive less weight than they might otherwise do. He is only 20 years of age, but he has been a prolific offender in the Youth Court with multiple episodes of burglary to his discredit.

[6] The Probation Service contemplates a full time custodial sentence in accordance with the guideline cases. R v Fatu1 is the guideline, and the matter is clearly within Category 2, which is a broad band encompassing dealings between five and 250 grams and predicating imprisonment sentences and a range of three and a half to 10 years. The defence says that the starting point here should be four years. The Crown says that it is more than six. I appreciate that this is the correct methodology, although at the end of the day, this is a case where some

_{adjustment for totality is necessary.}

[7] Little more need to be said about the facts, the summary of facts is not in dispute. The importations took place over a period of a year and involved

11 separate transactions, the great majority of those, the methamphetamine being sourced from Mexico, although on at least one other occasion a different source was

_involved.

[8] Mr Hawkins submits that I should confine myself to the total amount of methamphetamine involved in these transactions, that is 66.2 grams plus

10.8 amphetamines, 1.4 of MDMA and 2.1 of cannabis resin. The street value is said

_{to be in excess of $77,000.}

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

[9] In my view the enquiry is wider than the bare amount of drug involved otherwise the calculation would be a purely mathematical one. In my view I am also obliged to take into account the degree of premeditation, the frequency of transactions and the period of time over which the offending took place. In doing that, in my view, the Crown submission is closer to a correct starting point than that for the defendant.

[10] The starting point I believe that should be adopted in relation to the drug offending in total is one of six years’ imprisonment. So far as the document fraud involving $3300 is concerned, in my view an uplift of nine months would be required and so far as the two dwelling house burglaries concerned, together with the related receiving, a starting point of two and a half years would be indicated. Each sentence would be adjusted for early guilty pleas by 25 percent. The result however would be a sentence which is in excess of the total sentence required to meet the circumstances of all this offending.

[11] Modified by 25 percent, the drugs matters now result in a sentence of four and a half years’ imprisonment. So far as the other matters are concerned there is a total uplift of net 18 months, with a result that the defendant is sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Those sentences being cumulative four and a half years on the drugs matters and 18 months on the remaining matters.

A J Adeane

District Court Judge