R v Rice [2017] NZDC 15522 (14 July 2017)

Last Updated: 22 November 2017

_{EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPRESSION APPLIED}

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT GISBORNE

CRI-2016-016-000879 [2017] NZDC 15522

THE QUEEN

v

_{PETER LINDSAY CHARLES RICE}

Hearing:	14 July 2017
Appearances:	C R Walker for the Crown J C Mathieson for the Defendant
Judgment:	14 July 2017

_{NOTES OF JUDGE W P CATHCART ON SENTENCING}

[1] Mr Rice, as you know I must sentence you in relation to three charges: supplying methamphetamine, offering to supply methamphetamine and conspiring to supply methamphetamine.

[2] You offered 30.6 grams of the product and actually supplied 6.45 grams. For the purpose of sentencing I adopt this conservative figure of 37.05 grams.

[3] I must uphold the principles of deterrence and denunciation to try and stop this plague on the community. Also, the sentence needs to hold you accountable for the harm that you caused to the community.

R v PETER LINDSAY CHARLES RICE [2017] NZDC 15522 [14 July 2017]

[4] The guideline judgment is R v Fatu.1 Everyone here accepts that your offending fits within band 2. That gives the Court a wide range of anywhere between three years to nine years’ imprisonment. This is serious offending.

[5] The Crown referred me to Gilfedder v R.2 I am familiar with that case; I was counsel in the multi–defendant trial. It involved a total of 30 grams of methamphetamine. Mr Gilfedder was distributing it on behalf of the major manufacturer. The Court of Appeal considered that the starting point of four years was consistent but at the lower end of the range. Ms Gilfedder, however, was very close to the manufacturer in that case which is a serious matter.

[6] In R v Brown,3 the offender dealt 45 grams of methamphetamine. Wylie J

adopted a starting point of five years’ imprisonment.

[7] You sourced the methamphetamine for customers and you co-ordinated with Ms Williams to supply methamphetamine to her contacts. The Crown urges a start point of four and a half years’ imprisonment. Mr Mathieson submits a start point of four years’ imprisonment is consistent with the authorities. I concur with Mr Mathieson’s position. I adopt a four-year starting point for your overall offending, adjusted for totality.

[8] Mr Mathieson submits that there are no aggravating or mitigating factors personal to you that can change this starting point save your guilty plea. If you had pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity, which you should have, you would have received a greater discount. I cannot give you that full discount. Drug dealers in your position really need to face up to responsibility quickly so that they can get the benefit of that discount. You did not.

[9] Mr Mathieson submits approximately 15 percent. However, the Crown rightly points out that your guilty plea was entered on 16 February when your case had been set down for jury trial in the week commencing 6 March. That was reasonably close to the trial date. However, I accept Mr Mathieson’s submission that

_{the plea meant that witnesses were not ultimately inconvenienced.}

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

2 Gilfedder v R [2013] NZCA 426.

3 R v Brown [2016] NZHC 612.

[10] I am prepared to give you a discount of around six months for the guilty pleas. I arrive at a final sentence of three years, six months’ imprisonment, concurrent on all matters.

ADDENDUM:

[11] Mr Mathieson has made one final submission which I am now prepared to take into account. You have displayed remorse which was also reflected in your comment directly to me. The sentence will be reduced by a further period of two months to three years, four months’ imprisonment.

W P Cathcart

District Court Judge