R v Hazelton [2017] NZDC 7594 (10 April 2017)

Last Updated: 31 August 2017

_{EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED.}

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WAITAKERE

CRI-2016-092-006127 [2017] NZDC 7594

THE QUEEN

v

_{AARON WAYNE HAZELTON}

Hearing:	10 April 2017
Appearances:	T McGuigan for the Crown S Cullen for the Defendant
Judgment:	10 April 2017

_{NOTES OF JUDGE L TREMEWAN ON SENTENCING}

[1] Aaron Wayne Hazelton, you are a man in your mid-forties before the Court for sentence in relation to a charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply. The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment. It is accepted at the outset there is no evidence of actual supply. However, the amount of methamphetamine established to have been in your possession, 25 grams, was well over the statutory threshold for supply and a guilty plea has been entered, along with an explanation that it was for personal use.

[2] I have read of course the prosecution’s summary of facts and the pre-sentence report, which is a relatively positive document as far as it goes. I have also read defence and Crown submissions and been further assisted today by oral submissions from the lawyers. I have also read the decision of Judge Mather in relation to an

_{unsuccessful application challenging the admissibility of the evidence in your case.}

R v AARON WAYNE HAZELTON [2017] NZDC 7594 [10 April 2017]

And I do accept what Mr Cullen has said that once that challenge was brought, once the decision was made known then at that point a prompt guilty plea was entered.

[3] I have also seen your list of four previous convictions from the adult Court. It is a short but relevant history, in my view. What is clearly relevant are the two previous charges for supplying methamphetamine for which you received a sentence of four months’ home detention with special conditions along with community work. I further note that that was the second sentence of home detention that you have received as an alternative to a term of imprisonment. It is a matter of great regret that having been given that opportunity last time to remain in the community you have re-offended in the same way. Even if an addiction was driving unresolved drug related offending an offender can take steps to gain suitable support but, frankly speaking, it does seem that little has been done in that regard. You might have thought that you had your issues in hand, but clearly that has not worked very well for you in the past. The fact that you appear to have done little to get support to deal with such issues that you may have does not count against you today, but what it means is that you do not have the credit that might have otherwise been available if you had made more of the opportunity while you have been on bail to take more steps than you have.

[4] In a sentencing case such as this there is a need to deter not only the offender but others who may be interested in engaging in the same behaviours. There is a need to denounce, that is speak out against the offending, and promote a sense of responsibility for an acknowledgement of harm caused by the manufacture, supply and use of methamphetamine particularly.

[5] In the guideline decision of R v Fatu1 the Court of Appeal set out four sentencing bands. Where an offender fits will depend not only on the quality and purity of the drugs involved but the role played in the offending. The Crown suggest that you can be seen as a lower level street dealer. It is clear that the case involves band 2, supplying what is to be regarded as commercial quantities in the band from five to 250 grams which relates to an indicated sentencing band of three to

nine years’ imprisonment. The Crown particularly mentioned a case of R v Burton2 as being of assistance which also related to the same quantity of methamphetamine, but a higher indicated starting point was suggested by the Crown as being appropriate in that case because the offending also included dangerous driving and possession of an offensive weapon.

[6] I have read with care Mr Cullen’s submissions, but frankly although he has done his best for you, as he always does, at the same time he well accepts that the reality of this case is that the Crown position really cannot be argued with.

[7] The Crown suggest a starting point of three and a half years, 42 months’ imprisonment in your case, and in my view that is an appropriate indicated starting point.

[8] There should be an uplift for your previous. I will keep that at three months, it could rightly have been higher, and I am also going to give you a modest credit of three months for what I would still regard as potential to change. And I say that because I would hope that the indicated remorse for the situation that you are in is sincere and you are giving thought to the responsibility you have to your son, who deserves more from his father. I note in particular that you have been in the past a seemingly upstanding member of the community, a representative sports player. You have worked as a fire engineer. The fact that you will be imprisoned today will no doubt serve as a shock and it is to be hoped that this will be in and of itself salutary. So, as I say, there will be a three month credit applied there which is really as far as I can take that.

[9] The revised starting point is a sentence of 42 months. In my view, a credit for guilty plea of 20 percent is available. I do agree with the Crown’s submission that although no criticism can be made of your challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the fact is that this was not entering of guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity. You were wanting to test the waters first. As I say, you are entitled to take that approach, but in my view it is correct to say that the full credit should really be reserved for those cases where guilty pleas are immediately entered.

[10] Applying that credit, I now impose a sentence of two years and seven months’ imprisonment on you and the order for destruction which I have noted.

L Tremewan

District Court Judge