R v Hobson [2017] NZDC 18173 (16 August 2017)

Last Updated: 9 March 2018

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU

CRI-2015-092-013352

[2017] NZDC 18173

THE QUEEN

v

JACQUELINE JOSEPHINE HOBSON

Hearing:	16 August 2017
Appearances:	C Piho for the Crown P Winter for the Defendant
Judgment:	16 August 2017

NOTES OF JUDGE G A ANDRÉE WILTENS ON SENTENCING

[1] Ms Hobson, you are for sentence this morning in respect of three charges of importing methamphetamine, three charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply and one charge of conspiracy to import methamphetamine. The last charge has a maximum sentence available of 14 years’ jail. All the other charges have a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

[2] The reason for that is that methamphetamine is a scourge within our society and nobody apart from addicts likes to see it. It causes people to behave in ways that are completely outside their normal behaviour patterns and it makes them commit criminal offences in order to satisfy their habit to get more drugs. I am told it is very, very addictive and that for a lot of people, having just tried it once, that is sufficient to make them addicted so that they need more and more of it after that.

R v JACQUELINE JOSEPHINE HOBSON [2017] NZDC 18173 [16 August 2017]

[3] I do not know if that is true or not. What I do know is that the Court of Appeal has suggested guidelines for sentencing in cases of this type. The case in question is a case called R v Fatu1 that you have heard Mr Winter refer to and the prosecution has also referred to. It sets out certain bands which dictate for a certain quantity of methamphetamine there ought to be a certain range of sentence.

[4] What I am dealing with here in terms of the three importation charges, which are the lead charges in terms of this sentencing exercise, is 300 grams minimum of methamphetamine. The reason it is minimum is because it could well be more. The prosecution are unable to quantify it exactly but you accept that that is the level of drug that has been imported into New Zealand by pleading and accepting the summary of facts.

[5] That fits within band 3 of Fatu which means that the appropriate sentencing range is between nine and 13 years’ imprisonment. You have heard that the prosecution suggest that I start at 10 and Mr Winter suggests that I start at eight. On a purely mathematical exercise, it is more than 250, it is 300 plus so it cannot be starting at below the nine year start point. It has to be more than that so the start point for the lead offending here is 10 years’ imprisonment.

[6] The other charge of significance that I need to deal with is the conspiracy to import 290 grams, almost the same quantity of methamphetamine, and the only thing that thwarted that is the fact that the Thai authorities became aware of what was going on and stopped the drugs leaving Thailand. Otherwise those drugs too would be here in New Zealand and you now know that had you successfully imported 290 further grams of methamphetamine that would have meant you would have been in band 4 of Fatu which means 12 years to life imprisonment is what is recommended by the Court of Appeal as being the appropriate sentencing level.

[7] I personally think that what should happen here is that for the importations the start point should be 10 years and for the attempted further importation, the conspiracy charge, it should be a further four. I am prepared to moderate my view on that because in one sense the prosecution have given you a certain expectation when they presented

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

you with their submissions suggesting an uplift of only one year’s imprisonment. To my mind that is insufficient but I will not uplift it by four years, which I think is the appropriate level of sentence, but I will uplift it by only two. So, what I am looking at here in terms of your overall culpability is a start point of 12 years’ imprisonment.

[8] The Courts have also made it perfectly plain that the other thing that needs to be looked at, apart from quantity, is the role that you play. You are not somebody who has been paid a small amount of money to bring these drugs into New Zealand on your body or in your suitcase, known as a mule or a courier. They are at the very lowest level of culpability for their offending.

[9] The situation here seems to be, on the facts as the prosecution have presented them and you have accepted, you are in fact an organiser of the importation of drugs. You arrange for somebody from Thailand to send the drugs to a certain address. You arrange for those drugs to be met at Customs and taken to that address. You arrange for those drugs to be brought to you. You then deal with those drugs with whomever it is that you deal with here in New Zealand, spreading the scourge throughout our community. You receive payment for the full amount of the drugs and you arrange for that payment to be remitted back to Thailand.

[10] That is a significant role in the offending. I am afraid I cannot for one second accept what Mr Winter has submitted, that you are playing merely a minor role in this. Without you it would not happen, full stop. On that basis I am quite satisfied that the sentencing level that I have indicated of 12 years is appropriate, not just because of the quantity of drugs imported and intended and attempted to import but also because of your role in this offending in spreading the scourge within our community.

[11] Your plea is at a very late stage. Your personal circumstances which are reflected not only in the written material that Mr Winter has provided but the support that you have in Court but also in the pre-sentence report, I regret to say, are of limited assistance to you in terms of mitigation. The reason for that, again, is that if you are prepared to act in this way and to spread this scourge of a drug throughout our community then your personal circumstances are not significant. They cannot be. What is far more significant is your criminal culpability and that is very, very great so,

even though the pre-sentence report could be described as positive, it really does not help me much in terms of reducing the sentence that needs to be passed.

[12] The other thing that I need to have regard to is what has happened to Ms Matiu who, as Mr Winter says, was integral in the offending but playing a far lesser role than you. She was your assistant. You were directing her as to what she should be doing and what she actually did and she played a much less significant role in this offending than you did. Her start point was four years’ imprisonment and her end point was nine months’ home detention because her personal circumstances were of greater significance than they can be in your case.

[13] One of the Falwassers has been dealt with. The second one I still have to deal with on a future occasion when she is found. She is at present evading the authorities. The one who has been dealt with has been dealt with on the basis that she sent the proceeds of some of the methamphetamine, only a small part, to Thailand so she is involved in money laundering. It is a totally different type of offending and for that she was sentenced to intensive supervision and community work.

[14] The only sentence that I can pass for you for this offending is a term of imprisonment. I have to have regard to the principles of the Sentencing Act 2002. I have to hold you accountable for what you have done, I have to deter you and others and I have to protect the community. Protecting the community and deterring you and others are vital in terms of the sentencing exercise. They are the most important objectives.

[15] I have to have regard to your possible rehabilitation in time and I have to impose the least restrictive outcome that is available. On that basis I am prepared to reduce the sentence that I need to impose from the starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment by 20 percent because of your very late plea and because of your personal circumstances and community support. On a very generous basis I can round that down to a total of 9 years’ imprisonment. I am imposing that on all of these charges concurrently.

[16] Again I have to disagree with Mr Winter in terms of a minimum period of imprisonment. What you have done here is not just imported one lot of methamphetamine but you have imported three separate lots and attempted to import a fourth larger lot. As well as that, within the community you have gone around and sold some of this and spread it within the community. You are therefore seen as a menace to our community and the purposes and principles of sentence are not met by a sentence simply of nine years and allowing you to serve one third of that.

[17] The minimum period of imprisonment that I am imposing today is one of four and a half years of imprisonment. After that the Parole Board can look at the matter and see whether you are eligible for parole and to be eligible to be released on conditions and, if so, what conditions. So, the end sentence here is nine years’ imprisonment, with four and a half years’ minimum term.

[18] I believe charge 4952 might already have been withdrawn on 1 May before Judge Blackie and 4944 needs to be withdrawn. I have amended Judge Blackie’s minute to withdraw both of those now so they are now withdrawn.

Judge GA Andrée Wiltens

District Court Judge

Date of authentication: 21/08/2017

In an electronic form, authenticated pursuant to Rule 2.2(2)(b) Criminal Procedure Rules 2012.