R v William [2017] NZDC 4925 (9 March 2017)

Last Updated: 30 June 2017

_{EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED.}

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU

CRI-2016-092-009035 [2017] NZDC 4925

THE QUEEN

v

_{PAPA WILLIAM}

Hearing:	9 March 2017
Appearances:	N Dobbs for the Crown L Hughes for the Defendant
Judgment:	9 March 2017

_{NOTES OF JUDGE G A ANDRÉE WILTENS ON SENTENCING}

[1] Mr William, you are for sentence in relation to two sets of offending, the first occurred in March last year and the second in August last year, I am told now by Ms Hughes that in fact the age that you were at those times is different to the age that I had appreciated when I gave you a sentence indication, that you were one year younger than I understood you to be. So the first offending involves possession of a small amount of cannabis and possession of a small amount of methamphetamine when you were 19 it seems and then later when you were 20 possession of some five grams of methamphetamine for supply, unlawful possession of a pistol without a good reason for having it which happened to be a modified .22 which was loaded with nine rounds and possession of a pipe for methamphetamine.

[2] The driving while forbidden I am not concerned about, I convict you and discharge you in relation to that but that second set of offending occurred while you

_{were on bail awaiting sentence for the first set of offending.}

R v PAPA WILLIAM [2017] NZDC 4925 [9 March 2017]

[3] The sentence indication that I gave you was that the appropriate start point for the second set of offending was two and a half years plus the earlier offending and I would take into account your youth, you have no previous convictions and your pleas and I would get down to something like 26 months taking into account everything. The change since then is firstly that I have been corrected as to your actual age at the time of the earlier offending which is not as significant as the second offending and a pre-sentence report which has been obtained.

[4] The pre-sentence report is not flattering, a description of you being smug and amused when relaying the circumstances of your offending and it records that you showed no remorse for your actions and as the sergeant says, to be driving around in a motor vehicle in the process of having possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of supply with a loaded modified weapon, a pistol, is a very serious matter.

[5] I am prepared to take into account the new material and new information that

I have today but what that enables me to do is to reduce the starting point down to

24 months’ imprisonment.

[6] I then have to consider whether home detention is available for you and whether it is appropriate, it is obviously available because the law provides for an alternative to serving 24 months’ imprisonment by means of serving a sentence of home detention. The issue is does that satisfactorily deal with holding you accountable for your conduct and to deter you and others from acting in this way in the future? I am not satisfied it does, so even though you are in the range for a sentence of home detention I accept the recommendation in the pre-sentence report and sentence you to an actual term of imprisonment of 24 months, I impose that on the possession of methamphetamine for supply.

[7] The driving while forbidden, as I say, is convicted and discharged. [8] On all the other charges, three months’ imprisonment concurrently.

G A Andrée Wiltens

District Court Judge