R v Bennetts [2020] NZDC 693 (16 January 2020)

Last Updated: 30 December 2024

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT HAMILTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI KIRIKIRIROA

CRI-2019-019-003226

[2020] NZDC 693

THE QUEEN

v

PATRICK MICHAEL GEORGE BENNETTS

Hearing:	16 January 2020
Appearances:	S Gilbert for the Crown M Sturm for the Defendant
Judgment:	16 January 2020

NOTES OF JUDGE J C DOWN ON SENTENCING

[1] You and two others are charged on a Crown charge notice, dated 21 August 2019, containing three charges. You are on one charge, together with Michelle Hartman, who is proceeding towards a jury trial together with the other co-accused on charges 1 and 3, Joel Dette.

[2] The circumstances are not entirely clear. There was some arrangement between you and Mr Dette, the detail of which I will not go into, for the obtaining of a substantial quantity of methamphetamine. In the course of an interception investigation, the police became aware of you, of Mr Dette, and of the motel where he was staying, and they used various devices to track what the two of you and an unknown third party were doing.

R v PATRICK MICHAEL GEORGE BENNETTS [2020] NZDC 693 [16 January 2020]

[3] The purchase of a substantial amount of methamphetamine was arranged. There is no direct evidence as to whether money changed hands between you and Mr Dette but I am satisfied that you were a full participant, with full knowledge of this scheme, to obtain and inevitably to supply, a very large quantity of methamphetamine.

[4] As a result, the police were able at the appropriate time, to follow you and stop your vehicle on the way back from the visit to Taupo. You were stopped in the area of Lake Karapiro. A search was carried out. You were there, together with your partner, your co-accused. Found in the vehicle were two things of significance: a large quantity (158 gms) of what has been tested and described as pure methamphetamine; and a set of electronic scales.

[5] As a result, there was also a search at the motel room occupied by Mr Dette; further items were found that indicated involvement in drug dealing, drug paraphernalia. I accept of course what Mr Sturm says, that none of those items were found on you, bar of course the fact that you did have scales with you. However, by reference to the very large quantity of drugs you had possession of, it is absolutely plain, confirmed by your guilty plea, that this large amount of methamphetamine was destined for supply to others.

[6] I do not need to go into the great harm that methamphetamine causes in our society, all of us here know that. Your counsel has used the term “old lag”. When I looked at your record and read something about you, the same phrase came to my mind. You have a lot of experience in criminal offending and prison life. You have previous involvement in Class A drugs, heroin, and you have spent long terms in custody for that, for robbery, and for murder. You are a life prisoner. You have been re-called as a result of this offending so I do not add anything to the sentence to reflect the fact that you were on parole at the time, because that would risk double counting.

[7] Your counsel urges me to conclude that the appropriate start point is about five years. He accepts and agrees with the Crown that this offending sits in band 2 of the new guideline case of Zhang v R, that is amounts under 250 grams; that band covers a wide variety of offending and start points between two and nine years.1 Given the

1 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507.

quantity of these drugs, the police urge me to conclude that you are on the higher side of midway through that band and they propose six years.

[8] Mr Sturm properly points to the fact that this is a one-off involvement in one shipment of drugs. He does not seek to persuade me that you were merely a courier, that you did not know what you were doing, clearly you did, but your involvement goes no further than the scheme I have described. It is because of that, that I have come to the conclusion that although it is proper to characterise your role or involvement as “significant”, I can nevertheless conclude that the appropriate start point is a little less than that proposed by the Crown. I have concluded the appropriate start point is five years’ imprisonment.

[9] There are three further matters that I need to give consideration to: firstly, how much credit to grant for your guilty plea. You pleaded guilty at a very early stage; the fact that the evidence was strong is not, in my judgment, a proper basis on which to reduce what would otherwise be full credit of 25 percent. Although I am aware that there are some appeal cases that support that proposition, I personally do not agree with them, I am going to grant you 25 percent discount for your guilty pleas.

[10] The second, are matters of personal mitigation. You obviously do not have good character to fall back on, but you are a man of advancing years, you have some medical issues, you are now 70 I believe, and you are fearful of the prospect of living out the rest of your days in prison. I can well understand that and take it into account in determining what the appropriate end sentence will be.

[11] The final thing that I want to take into account is your own use of methamphetamine. It does not seem to be the driving force in this offending; indeed, with a shipment of this size, it could not possibly fall into the category of purchase of drugs to fund your own habit, that argument would fall flat and properly Mr Sturm does not advance it. But he does ask me to take your background into account, your age and your health, and also take account of the fact that you are somewhat embarrassed by the position you find yourself in now. You want to participate in rehabilitation in prison for the primary purpose of using yourself as an example of what not to do; to encourage young men not to end up like you. I can understand that

sentiment. I am sure that it will be effective with some young men and I encourage you to do that.

[12] Taking all of those things into consideration, a discount of 10 percent is justified, being six months, reducing the sentence to four years and six months. A guilty plea discount of 25 percent equates to 14 months, and a final sentence of (40 months) three years 4 months.

[13] On the charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply, you are convicted and sentenced to three years and 4 months imprisonment. Because of the length and the fact that you are on a life sentence, it must be served concurrently with your life sentence, which means that after a certain period, the Parole Board will be able to reconsider parole again. Three years and four months imprisonment.

Judge J Down

District Court Judge

Date of authentication: 23/01/2020

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