R v St George [2017] NZDC 12395 (12 June 2017)

Last Updated: 12 November 2017

_{EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED.}

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND

CRI-2015-004-009204 [2017] NZDC 12395

THE QUEEN

v

_{JONATHON ST GEORGE}

Hearing:	12 June 2017
Appearances:	G Campbell for the Crown R Mansfield for the Defendant
Judgment:	12 June 2017

_{NOTES OF JUDGE C J FIELD ON SENTENCING}

[1] Mr St George, you have pleaded guilty and are to be sentenced today in respect of a number of serious charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. In particular, of course, possession of methamphetamine for supply, supplying methamphetamine, offering to supply methamphetamine and supplying a Class B controlled drug MDMA. In addition to that of course we have the sale of the cannabis and the money laundering charge.

[2] I should start by acknowledging the presence of your family and your friends and supporters in Court today. It is not often one sees such a level of support and I have read, I should say also, the letters of reference that have been sent to the Court including your own submission, Mr St George. All of these, of course, are matters that I can and will take into account in calculating the end sentence and any deductions that should be made for your rehabilitation and support.

[3] However, returning to the offending itself, these are of course very serious offences, we all know that. They carry a maximum of life imprisonment and there are certain Court of Appeal judgments or guideline judgments which set out the way in which the Court really must approach sentencing in cases such as this.

[4] You were part of a significant drug operation. It was dubbed Operation Dragons – for obvious reasons, presumably – but involved you and others being involved in the supply and distribution of methamphetamine and of course I do not overlook the MDMA charge. The operation went on for some considerable time and as a result of the net spread by the police a number of people have been apprehended.

[5] Now the Crown submits that a starting point, having regard to the totality of the offending, including the money laundering and the sale of cannabis, should be something in the vicinity of seven and a half to eight years. I have to say that I agree with that starting point of seven and a half years, for reasons which I will set out in a moment, but from that can be made something allowances for matters such as your plea, your general character, your prospects of rehabilitation which I regard as high and the overall responsible way in which you have conducted yourself over the course of the various hearings.

[6] I reach the seven and a half year starting point by adopting a starting point of six years for the MDMA offending and the methamphetamine offending. Certainly, had this been simply the methamphetamine alone then one might have adopted a starting point of some four or five years but, sadly, this requires up uplift for the MDMA as well. The money laundering, of course, and the sale of cannabis are separate offences. The sale of cannabis is not particularly significant but the money laundering involving, as I understand it, something over $100,000 – not money in respect of you but in a general sense – has to attract a cumulative sentence if one were to deal with it in that way of, say, 18 months. That includes, of course, the cannabis offending. In all, the Court could justify a starting point of considerably more than seven and a half years but I do have regard to the need to tailor a sentence which, whilst it might be otherwise be justified, would not be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending in its totality.

[7] Now, having said all of that, there are a number of significant deductions that the Court can make for your actions subsequent to the arrest. As I have said, I am particularly impressed with the level of support that you have. I have read, as I say, the letters and I note the presence of all of those people in Court for you. Now the Court can place considerable emphasis on prospects of rehabilitation. In this case those prospects, in my view, are very high indeed and without going into all of the details I do note the plans that you have for your future when you are released and this is the most recent material supplied to me by Mr Mansfield. You have effectively a job to go, you are going to complete the Alcohol and Other Drug programme, you have undertaken voluntary departmental tests and I have no reason to think that you will offend in this way ever again, given the support that you are likely to receive.

[8] Further of course, you have spent some time on restrictive bail conditions and there have been no particular difficulties there. If, then, I were to adopt a starting point of seven and a half years that is to say, a global starting point, would be, say,

90 months. From that I will deduct 13 months for these matters that I have referred to. Now I should say that personal circumstances do not loom very large in cases of this kind but the prospects of rehabilitation do and that would then leave an available sentence of some 77 months. From that I will deduct 20 percent for your plea, which I consider is appropriate, leaving a total effect of sentence of five years imprisonment. That is the sentence then that I do impose on the methamphetamine charges and the MDMA charge. The other charges attract a sentence of 18 months on the money laundering and six months on the sale of cannabis but those are concurrent with the sentence that I impose now.

[9] Your sentence therefore today in respect of the major charges is one of five years’ imprisonment and in relation to the others 18 months and six months concurrent.

C J Field

District Court Judge