R v Tatana [2017] NZDC 12897 (9 June 2017)

Last Updated: 21 October 2017

_{EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPRESSION APPLIED.}

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND

CRI-2015-004-011558 [2017] NZDC 12897

THE QUEEN

v

PORCIA DEN TATANA

Hearing: 9 June 2017

Appearances: H Steele for the Crown

M Pecotic for the Defendant

Judgment: 9 June 2017

_{NOTES OF JUDGE R J COLLINS ON SENTENCING}

[1] You are for sentence in relation to four charges; one matter, that went to trial before myself as the trial Judge and a jury, possession of methamphetamine for supply, and that involved 27.1 grams of methamphetamine. There were another three charges to which you had previously pleaded guilty. They were possession for supply of an ecstasy analogue drug, which is a Class C controlled drug, and two charges of conspiring with Mr Sadler to sell those ecstasy analogue drugs.

[2] It is a little bit difficult in your case to know just where to start and what is appropriate to say. In some respects it might be said that the less I say the better and just simply sentence you and move on but I think, out of courtesy to the massive amount of whānau support that you have, that I do need to say a little bit more.

[3] I get no pleasure whatsoever sentencing a young woman to a term of imprisonment today and what I am about to say; while I do not say it to berate you or

_{to criticise you or to be judgemental but what you need to understand because Judges}

R v PORCIA DEN TATANA [2017] NZDC 12897 [9 June 2017]

that sit where I do in this Court see it on a daily basis, is the absolute damage that methamphetamine does. It wrecks lives and it is probably not being overly dramatic to say that probably we would only need half the number of Judges we have if it was not for methamphetamine. It does a huge amount of damage and so those who would offend in relation to it, even in the way that you have done, effectively as Ms Pecotic has urged on me that you have done that as a secondary party; it still has to be met with a deterrent sentence because the damage the drug does is so great.

[4] I can tell you that you are only one of three women today appearing for sentencing in this Court, before one Judge, because of your involvement with a man that led to involvement in methamphetamine. So you might feel huge regret; you might admonish yourself for your involvement with your former partner but sadly, and I say very sadly, as a young woman of otherwise some significant promise you are not alone.

[5] What I have to do is set a starting point for your offending, and that is for the offending itself, before I take into account matters which are personal to you. I have to pick a starting point which is consistent with others who were sentenced for this sort of offending; so it is not a case of trying to single you out and make an example of you or be tough as far as you are concerned.

[6] Mr Steele, who prosecuted the trial, has submitted that a starting point around three and a half years is appropriate. Ms Pecotic, I am sure, would like me to take a starting point a bit below that. However, looking at all those cases I believe in this case a starting point of three and a half years is appropriate.

[7] The other offences to which you pleaded guilty, on their own, could well warrant a much greater sentence than the uplift I am about to propose. It could be argued that they would, if they stood on their own, attract a sentence around three years. But on an uplift basis, taking into account that you have pleaded guilty to those, in my view an uplift of 12 months is appropriate and that would take me to a point of four and a half years.

[8] However, there does need to be some discount in your case. Regrettably it cannot be for any guilty plea to the possession of methamphetamine charge. I can well understand why that matter went to trial. I have got no doubt that when you finally got arrested for that, your world had caved in and, knowing full well the jeopardy or the danger that you were in, you took the matter to trial.

[9] Let me say one thing; I consider that you were well-represented by Ms O’Halloran at trial as you have been extremely well-represented by Ms Pecotic at sentencing. Your counsel at trial had done an exceptionally good job for you getting the evidence of the Class C drugs excluded from being before the jury, and that was very much to your advantage at trial.

[10] However, on a combination of matters; firstly your prospects of rehabilitation and I am fortified on that by the amount of family support that you do have, for your relative youth and generally for the remorse and as I say the prospects of rehabilitation and family support, I believe a credit of 12 months from the starting point is appropriate and that would take matters to a sentence of three and a half years or 42 months.

[11] I think you well know, Ms Tatana, that you will be eligible to apply for parole at one third of that sentence and no doubt what will be hugely influential for the parole board will be the efforts that you make in terms of rehabilitation during the sentence that you serve.

[12] On the charge of possession of the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine for supply you are sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment. On the other three charges you are sentenced to terms of imprisonment of two years. All terms of imprisonment are concurrent. That is a total of three and a half years’ imprisonment.

R J Collins

District Court Judge