R v Williams [2018] NZDC 20546 (28 September 2018)

Last Updated: 4 July 2019

EDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS].

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT PALMERSTON NORTH

I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE PAPAIOEA

CRI-2017-054-002520 [2018] NZDC 20546

THE QUEEN

v

_{CRADEN MATTHEW HOHEPA WILLIAMS}

Hearing:	28 September 2018
Appearances:	M Blaschke for the Crown T Thackery for the Defendant
Judgment:	28 September 2018

_{NOTES OF JUDGE L C ROWE ON SENTENCING}

[1] Craden Williams you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to three charges of importing methamphetamine, one charge of manufacturing methamphetamine and one charge of supplying methamphetamine. Each of these charges carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

[2] The first charge in time is the supply of methamphetamine. 90 grams of methamphetamine had been imported into the country and the police identified that you met with an associate and supplied that associate with a quantity of that methamphetamine. The actual amount supplied to the associate is not known but there were text messages between you confirming that supply, questioning the quality of the methamphetamine that had been supplied, but also discussing further importations of

_{methamphetamine into New Zealand.}

R v CRADEN MATTHEW HOHEPA WILLIAMS [2018] NZDC 20546 [28 September 2018]

[3] Between 11 and 25 July 2017 you arranged with an unidentified associate from overseas to import a parcel containing methamphetamine into New Zealand, that was addressed to your grandmother’s address. You redirected the parcel to a New Zealand Courier Post depot and picked it up from the depot. The box contained a pair of Chinese slippers. Concealed in the sole of one of the slippers was 180 grams of methamphetamine.

[4] The next importation was arranged between 4 and 10 August 2017. You had contacted your sister and told her a parcel was being delivered to her Opotiki address in your deceased grandfather’s name. You received several phone calls from overseas discussing the parcel and arranging payment of money for the parcel into an overseas bank account. The parcel was intercepted by Customs on 10 August. It had come from India and was addressed in the name of your deceased grandfather. It contained an item of footwear described as a Chinese slipper which concealed 199 grams of methamphetamine.

[5] On 15 August you were at your mother’s address, [address 1 deleted]. You undertook a manufacturing process in relation to methamphetamine in the driveway of the address. It is probably more correct that what you were undertaking was a process to either wash or purify methamphetamine that had already been produced but was an inferior product. In any event the glass dish used to collect the finished product smashed resulting in the end product spilling onto the ground. When the police subsequently executed a search warrant they found a number of items used in the manufacture at that address.

[6] The other active importation was that on 24 July a printer originating from Nigeria and destined for [address 2 deleted] was intercepted by New Zealand Customs. That was an address of one of your associates. The printer was examined by Customs initially in relation to GST and found to contain a package containing 154 grams of methamphetamine. When spoken to by police you admitted the facts that I have just outlined.

[7] , [Details relating to manufacturing process suppressed]. Whatever the explanation, it is clear the process you undertook did not result in methamphetamine making its way onto the streets and that is a factor that I take into account.

[8] When I assess an appropriate sentence for you I must have regard to principles identified in the leading case of R v Fatu1 and that case has been referred to by the Crown in their submissions and by your lawyer. The lead offending for sentencing here is the importation of methamphetamine. In this instance, your importation was of 533 grams overall. On top of that there was a supply of an unknown quantity of methamphetamine from another importation. The actual quantity you supplied is not known.

[9] Sentencing authorities for importation, supply and manufacturing of methamphetamine stress the destructive nature of methamphetamine and that has been referred to by Pastor Stone today. It is now well documented that methamphetamine is ruining people’s lives. It is ruining the lives of families, children and the drug dealers are preying on the misery of drug addicts to make money. It is the destructive nature of methamphetamine that has led to Parliament imposing a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for such offending and which led the Court of Appeal in R v Fatu to identify sentencing bands which stress that the usual outcome for dealing, importing or manufacturing methamphetamine is imprisonment and frequently imprisonment for a substantial period of time.

[10] Your explanation is that you embarked on this enterprise to repay debts that you had incurred previously with criminal organisations. The police say your offending went further than that and refer to various text messages. What is agreed though is that you were not alone in your endeavours. There were other people involved. But whatever explanation, you played a significant role in having between

530 and 620 grams of methamphetamine released into our community.

[11] In terms of R v Fatu that would place you within the top of band 3 or the bottom of band 4 in the importation bands identified by the Court of Appeal. The top of the

_{range of band 3 which relates to the importation of large commercial quantities of}

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

methamphetamine of between 250 to 500 grams is 13 years’ imprisonment. The bottom of band 4 which relates to importing very large commercial quantities of methamphetamine, that is 500 grams or more is 12 years’ imprisonment.

[12] The Court of Appeal has therefore made it clear that starting points for importation on this scale involve substantial terms of imprisonment as a starting point, stressing the requirement to send the message that the destruction methamphetamine causes in our community is to be met by complete denunciation of that and deterrence wherever possible. I am required to follow the law when I set a starting point sentence and I am required to assess your offending against those starting points.

[13] Here I consider the least restrictive starting point appropriate for you, having regard to those bands, what happened here and your role, is 12 years’ imprisonment.

[14] The next question is whether there is anything about you which ought to increase that starting point. Firstly, and obviously it is a seriously aggravating feature that you were committing these offences while on parole for manufacturing methamphetamine. You had previously received a sentence of more than six years’ imprisonment for manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of relevant instruments. I am asked to moderate that increase having regard to what is called totality and to put things within their perspective. The least restrictive increase, having regard to this aggravating feature, is 12 months. I therefore adopt an overall starting point in your case of 13 years’ imprisonment.

[15] From this point, I have to consider what mitigating factors are available to you. Pastor Stone has addressed me today about the work he has undertaken with you. I also have a pre-sentence report and other information which suggests you are extremely remorseful for your conduct and have tried very hard to put matters right as far as you are able.

[16] The Crown agrees you are entitled to substantial credit for those factors. Some of the matters raised by Pastor Stone today I cannot address within the context of sentencing. They are more to do with sentencing policy and sentencing practice in terms of the supply of methamphetamine, and what can be done to beat drug addiction

in our communities. Those are matters for others to consider when setting tariffs or setting maximum sentences. As I said, I am required to follow the law.

[17] Here, however, it is clear you have taken substantial steps indicating sincere and genuine remorse and you have done so in a way that has tried to repair some of the damage. For mitigating factors that are relevant to you, and here I refer to your remorse and the positive steps you have taken, some of which have been referred to by Pastor Stone, I firstly take that starting point of 13 years’ imprisonment, that is 156 months. I deduct 52 months from that starting point. My reason for doing so will be [details deleted] but it is quite clear there are strongly mitigating factors available for you and in this case, they result in a discount of more than four years from that starting point.

[18] I also give you credit for your guilty pleas which were entered at a very early stage and in fact were inevitable given you co-operated with the police or at least admitted your offending from the outset. That results in a further 26 months’ discount from your sentence, leaving an end point of six and a half years’ imprisonment.

[19] The next factor is whether a sentence of six and a half years’ imprisonment ought to bring with it a minimum term of imprisonment. The Crown submissions explain reasons why a minimum term of imprisonment could apply to you, particularly having regard to the nature of your conduct on this occasion and your previous convictions. I prefer, however, to leave the issue of your release into the community and the timing of that, as a matter for the parole board. There is a strong basis for a minimum term, particularly in the face of repeat offending of this kind which raises issues of safety to the public. But equally you have demonstrated to my mind that you are quite able to live drug and crime free in the community. The extent to which you can do so will be a matter for assessment by the parole board. It is worth making the comment that whatever led to this offending, and the factors that placed you under the influence of others no longer seems to apply.

[20] You have very strong whānau support today. You have strong support from

Pastor Stone who has spoken movingly on your behalf. There is far more to you

Mr Williams than this offending suggests. Sadly, you have played a part in the last

few years in increasing the supply of methamphetamine into our community. I have already mentioned the harm that causes to our community. But I will leave it for the parole board to determine whether you are at risk of causing any further such harm to the community. The information I now have about you suggests you are not, but that is a matter for the parole board.

[21] I therefore do not impose a minimum term of imprisonment. I do hope the support available today from your whānau, from your pastor, remains with you so when you go before the board you are able to provide a clear picture for them and a clear direction forward. You and I know the parole board are no fools and just like Pastor Stone they can spot a phoney. So you will need to put it all out there and demonstrate from now until your board hearings, and if it is not the first board then the second board, however that goes. But with the support of your whānau, how it is you are going to keep people safe in the future and not fall back into the company of persons who might lead you down this dark path again.

[22] The sentence is imposed in the following way; on the three importation charges you are sentenced to six years, six months’ imprisonment. On the charge of supplying methamphetamine, you are sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and on the charge of manufacturing you are sentenced to one year imprisonment. All terms are

_{concurrent. The future now Mr Williams is for you and your whānau. Good luck.}

Judge L C Rowe

District Court Judge

Date of authentication: 07/12/2018

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