R v Dilley [2017] NZDC 21313 (20 September 2017)

Last Updated: 13 April 2018

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND

CRI-2016-044-003965

[2017] NZDC 21313

THE QUEEN

v

JOHN ROGER DILLEY

Hearing:	20 September 2017
Appearances:	H Reid for the Crown K-A Stoikoff for the Defendant
Judgment:	20 September 2017

NOTES OF JUDGE A E KIERNAN ON SENTENCING

[1] Mr Dilley, I am going to sentence you now. You know the result because I have given you a sentence indication back on 16 August. I will not repeat everything I said then, but after the indication you pleaded guilty to five charges, manufacturing Class A methamphetamine, possessing it for supply, possession of precursor substances, possession of equipment and possession of material. Those offences were on 2 November last year.

[2] The indication that I gave to you was a starting point of four years’ imprisonment for the manufacturing, an uplift of 18 months for the other offending, so that took it to five and a half years. I talked about a discount between 15 and 20 percent for your pleas before trial, though not at the first opportunity, and I reached

R v DILLEY [2017] NZDC 21313 [20 September 2017]

the view, ultimately, that four years six months’ imprisonment would be a fair sentence.

[3] So in a moment I am going to impose that. I just need to refer briefly to the facts again so it is in the decision. In November last year, you were living, or staying nearby, but certainly using your parents’ property in Milford. You were manufacturing methamphetamine in the garage. There was an error in the process and a fire started. As you know, police and ambulance were called and when they arrived you were still in the garage and appeared to be destroying items and throwing things out. You carried on doing that for some minutes and you did suffer from serious burn injuries yourself.

[4] At one point you grabbed a reaction vessel known as a par bomb and tried to run away. You were arrested after the police challenged you and there was of course a complete inspection of the property. Crystal methamphetamine, manufactured already 2.5 grams, also precursor substances, hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid and acetone and materials including sodium hydroxide and phosphorous acid and equipment including the par bomb, distiller, conical flasks, pH meter, a dryer and a cooker. You yourself had to receive hospital treatment for the burns. Those are the facts that you have accepted.

[5] There are previous convictions which I of course knew about when I gave you the indication and, as I said to you then, the most relevant really were the convictions entered in 2008 for possession of equipment or material with intent when you received a term of two years’ imprisonment. At that time, there was another offence, possession of a firearm, sentenced at the same time. Previously possession for supply of cannabis plant and cultivation of cannabis in 2001, two years at that time but given leave to apply for home detention.

[6] So on your history, Mr Dilley, as I noted before, there is no conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine or indeed possession for supply. The previous offending was cannabis related way back in the 1980s and then possession for supply of cannabis and cultivation 2001, then the more recent offending 2008 equipment.

[7] I have had the benefit of a pre-sentence report today. You seem to have been very upfront with the probation officer. You are assessed as at medium risk of re-offending despite your previous convictions. Risk of harm to others assessed as high and that is because of that firearm offence in recent times, but also the manufacturing in that residential area. You are fortunate of course that there was not a worse explosion, and fortunately that you yourself did not suffer more serious injury. I am sure you know all of that. You said to the probation officer you were an addict. You had become a fully blown addict. You were pretty much consumed by it, manufacturing you say for your personal use, but you have accepted because of the quantity, possession for supply.

[8] There is a letter today that you have written to the Court and that is referred to in the pre-sentence report and you apologise. In that letter, you say you are ashamed and sorry for these crimes, and you apologise particularly to the police and the Fire Service, and also to the community because, as you point out, methamphetamine is a very big problem in our community causing much harm and suffering. You want to take advantage, as you say in that letter and as Ms Stoikoff has repeated, of any rehabilitation available to you, in particular the DTU or Drug Treatment Unit if you are offered that in the prison, which is a six month very good rehabilitation programme.

[9] In the probation report the writer says you are motivated to address your addiction. There are some fines, over $3000 worth. I will remit them as part of this sentence, so you have a clean slate, as it were, when you come out. I need a s 88 report which the Court will obtain for me. You have family of course. Your parents are overseas at the moment and you do have that support, albeit perhaps at arm’s-length at the moment and you say you want to determine your own pathway. You say in your letter you have obviously let your family down as well as yourself and others. You have got bridges to build, as you point out.

[10] You were on a sickness benefit. You do have building skills and you hope to use those in the future. You are adamant there were no gang affiliations, as there often are with methamphetamine offending, but in any event those issues are not mentioned in any of the material I have read.

[11] So, Mr Dilley, I take into account what is in the report and Ms Stoikoff emphasises the acknowledgement of the addiction and the intention to get help is perhaps the first and important step. Ms Reid did not wish to add anything on behalf of the Crown, except I will make an order obviously destroying the drug and all the equipment and materials.

[12] So, Mr Dilley, I am going to sentence you now in accordance with the indication that I gave you. The most serious offences are the first two, that is the manufacturing and possession for supply, life imprisonment is the penalty. On each of those offences, a term of four years and six months’ imprisonment.

[13] On the other three other matters, which are possession of precursors, equipment and material, maximum is five years, for each of those a term of two years’ imprisonment concurrent. So that runs at the same time.

[14] The total is four years and six months.

[15] I hope that you will have the opportunity to engage in the DTU and I hope not to see you again, Mr Dilley. I trust you will take the opportunities that are available to you. I will give you back that certificate for the programme that you have been doing.

A E Kiernan District Court Judge