R v Carter [2017] NZDC 27112 (29 November 2017)

Last Updated: 3 September 2018

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT HAMILTON

CRI-2016-019-007714

[2017] NZDC 27112

THE QUEEN

v

PAMELA JOY CARTER

Hearing:	29 November 2017
Appearances:	T Needham for the Crown T Sutcliffe for the Defendant
Judgment:	29 November 2017

NOTES OF JUDGE R L B SPEAR ON SENTENCING

[1] Pamela Joy Carter you are for sentence on a total of 10 drug-related charges. You pleaded guilty to those charges following a sentencing hearing before me on 7 September 2017. I indicated an end sentence of three years, nine months’ imprisonment. That account of pleas of guilty and any other mitigating factor. I will come back to the assessment of that sentence in a minute.

[2] You are 51 years of age. This offending occurred when you were 50. You have no previous convictions. You are someone who has fallen into the trap of using methamphetamine and that led on to you becoming a dealer in order to support your habit. That by itself however has to be put into context. The people who provided you with the drugs that got you hooked on meth have to bear some responsibility for where you are today but equally by you taking up the dealing option as you have done quite deliberately, you were also adding to the number of people who became addicted to this horrible drug. It is simply a drug that is causing havoc in the New Zealand communities and when dealers are apprehended and

R v PAMELA JOY CARTER [2017] NZDC 27112 [29 November 2017]

it is difficult to apprehend them, to detect them, then a sentence must be imposed that lets all know that this is serious offending and that drug dealers, particularly for meth can expect absolutely no leniency and can expect no allowance for personal circumstances.

[3] I turn now to the offending. You were stopped by the police on 3 December while driving your car, that you were sitting in the car, the police were able to smell cannabis coming from the vehicle, they searched it and found you with six grams of methamphetamine in two separate containers, 20 grams of high quality cannabis head, 175 cannabis seeds, four caps of cannabis oil, 19 methamphetamine pipes of which nine were unused and a cannabis pipe.

[4] The police also found items that are customarily employed by drug dealers, a set of electronic scales, a large number of plastic zip lock bags, tinfoil cut into rectangles, a cannabis grinder and a tick sheet recording cannabis transactions and amounts owing. Your cellphone indicated an enquiry for a drug purchase and an analysis of your text messages on the cellphone indicated that you were actively involved in offering to sell cannabis and methamphetamine over a two-week period from 19 December to 1 December [sic]. The assessment by the police was that there were six separate offers by you to sell cannabis with an identifiable quantity of 1.5 ounces. There were also five separate offers to supply methamphetamine with an identifiable quantity of just over two grams. There were other messages that suggested that there was more drug-dealing but they were not able to be clarified to any level of certainty.

[5] While you were on bail for that offending you were stopped again, this time in Victoria Street, Hamilton. Again cannabis could be smelt when the police spoke to you. A search was undertaken revealing 52 grams of cannabis, a blow torch, electronic scales and a cannabis grinder. At the police station you went through a strip search and you were found to have concealed internally a glass pipe commonly used for smoking methamphetamine. What is abundantly clear is that you did not take heed of the fact that you were facing serious charges from 3 December 2016, that you were on bail. What you did was you just simply carried on as a dealer.

[6] As I explained in the sentence indication decision the methamphetamine dealing puts this at the bottom of the second band in the leading decision of R v Fatu1 which suggests a band of three to nine years. I indicated then a starting point of three years’ imprisonment.

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

[7] The cannabis dealing by itself would fall within the second band of the leading decision of R v Terewi2 indicating a starting point of between two and four years’ imprisonment. Again, I adopted a starting point of two years for that offending. Then going through all the other dealing I calculated that for all the offending with appropriate uplifts and to recognise the fact that you were on bail at the time of the second offending the calculation would bring me up to six years three months’ imprisonment. However, applying the totality principle I rounded that down to five years’ imprisonment.

[8] I recognise as you were then 50 years of age without any previous convictions and someone who has come to methamphetamine at a relatively late age you are entitled to some credit for leading an earlier blameless life and I fix that at six months against the sentence that would otherwise be imposed upon you.

[9] As I have indicated any other personal mitigating circumstances of the type identified by Mr Sutcliffe relating to the difficulty you had with the death of your parents and the ending of a long-term relationship has to be put in the context that it can count for nothing for a drug dealer at this level.

[10] The sentence that I reached on the basis that you would get a 15 percent deduction for a guilty plea if entered within five days as was the case was an end sentence of three years nine months’ imprisonment. The pre-sentence report deals primarily with your personal circumstances and as I have indicated they can count for little given the seriousness of your offending.

[11] I note that you are a diabetic. I note that you have an adult daughter who no doubt is particularly ashamed of the fact that her mother is now in prison and has been a drug dealer but what is needed for this sentence is the very clear message to be stated again and with emphasis that those who seek to profit from the pernicious trade in methamphetamine will be dealt with firmly by the Courts. That is necessary to deter those who might contemplate this as a way of financing their habit or making some easy money. You need to be held fully to account for what you have done.

[12] The sentence must mark the seriousness of the offending and it must deter you from ever contemplating offending of this nature in the future. You need to spend your time in

2 R v Terewi [1999] NZCA 92; [1999] 3 NZLR 62 (CA).

prison contemplating where your life is going and developing a resolve never to return to drugs.

[13] Sentencing

• (a) On the charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply, charge 1, you are sentenced to three years nine months’ imprisonment.
  
• (b) Charge 2, possession of cannabis sale, 12 months’ imprisonment.
  
• (c) Charges 3, 4, 5 and 6 possession of seeds, a pipe for smoking cannabis, for utensils for smoking methamphetamine and for cannabis oil, on each of those charges, one month’s imprisonment.
  
• (d) Charge 7, a representative charge of offering to supply methamphetamine two years’ imprisonment.
  
• (e) Charge 8, a representative charge of offering to supply cannabis, six months’ imprisonment.
  
• (f) Charge 9, possession of a pipe one month’s imprisonment.
  
• (g) Charge 10, possession of cannabis for sale 12 months’ imprisonment.
  

Judge RLB Spear

District Court Judge

Date of authentication: 13/12/2017

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