R V PIDDUCK HC AK CRI-2009-092-10236 [2009] NZHC 1123 (25 August 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY
                                                            CRI-2009-092-10236



                                        QUEEN



                                            v



                          ANGELA
BEVERLY PIDDUCK



Hearing:       25 August 2009

Appearances: BR Northwood for Crown
             F Hogan for Offender

Judgment:
     25 August 2009

Sentence imposed:       Possession of equipment with intent to manufacture
                        methamphetamine
(x2)
                        Three months' home detention, concurrent
                        Possession of precursor substances
with intent to
                        manufacture methamphetamine (x2)
                        Three months' home detention, concurrent
                        Unlawfully taking a motor vehicle
                        Three months' home detention, concurrent
     
                  Unlawfully got into a motor vehicle
                        Three months' home detention, concurrent
         
              Theft of property worth under $500 (x8)
                        Three months' home detention, concurrent
         
              Theft of property worth between $500 and $1,000 (x4)
                        Three months' home detention, concurrent
                        Theft of property worth over $1,000 (x4)
                        Three months' home detention, concurrent
                        Possession of methamphetamine
                        Three months' home detention, concurrent
         
              Possession of utensils for methamphetamine use
                        Three months' home detention, concurrent
  
                     Possession of cannabis
                        Three months' home detention, concurrent


R V PIDDUCK HC AK
CRI-2009-092-10236 25 August 2009

                         SENTENCING NOTES OF ASHER J



Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor,
PO Box 2213, Auckland
F Hogan, Barrister, dykes Road, Karaka, RD 1, Papakura, Auckland

[1]    Ms Pidduck, you appear for sentence
today on two counts of possession of
equipment with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, and two for possession of
precursor substances
with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. You also appear
on a raft of other charges as follows:

       ·       Unlawfully taking
a motor vehicle;

       ·       Unlawfully got into a motor vehicle;

       ·       Theft of property worth under $500 (x8);


      ·       Theft of property worth between $500 and $1,000 (x4);

       ·       Theft of property worth over $1,000 (x4);

 
     ·       Possession of methamphetamine;

       ·       Possession of utensils for methamphetamine use; and

       ·       Possession
of cannabis.


The possession of equipment and precursor substances convictions arise as a
consequence of your association with Mr
Tua, who is allegedly a manufacturer and
dealer in methamphetamine.


[2]    The Crown summary records that you were not actively
involved in the
manufacture of methamphetamine. However, you were present at two clandestine
laboratories and were a regular user
of methamphetamine. On one occasion at your
home that you occupied with Mr Tua, a search of the garage of the address revealed
parts
of a large clandestine laboratory that had been in use.        Items included
glassware, a water distiller and a steel condenser.
There was no sign that it was
capable of being used to manufacture methamphetamine at the time, and there were
no substances found
used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.


[3]    The other occasion was on 26 November 2008 when you were the passenger
in a
vehicle, which belongs to you and was being driven by Mr Tua. A search of the
boot revealed glassware, fans and chemicals, including
acetone and methylated

spirits. These appeared to make up a methamphetamine laboratory, although it
seems it was not one that you
were going to use yourself.


[4]    In relation to the considerable number of theft and dishonesty charges, these
appear to be thefts either to support yourself and your drug
habit, or possibly at the
command of persons in gangs. A number of items of considerable value were stolen,
although the majority
have been recovered.       However, the items not recovered
appear to exceed $6,000 in value.


[5]    I turn to the appropriate
starting point. In relation to the possession of
equipment and possession of precursor substances charges, the maximum sentence is
five years' imprisonment. In the recent Court of Appeal decision of R v Harding
CA374/07 29 November 2007, where the Court considered
offending that involved
the presence of a fully operational clandestine laboratory, a starting point of
somewhere between two and
two-and-a-half years' imprisonment was accepted as
appropriate. In R v Saundercock HC WN CRI-2005-085-3489 8 February 2007,
Mallon
J imposed a sentence of 21 months in a situation where the equipment and
materials found could have led to the manufacture of methamphetamine.
In R v
Gibbons HC AK CRI-2005-004-2579 8 February 2006 Asher J, a starting point of
15 months' imprisonment was reached where the
possession was for a very short
time and the involvement peripheral.


[6]    I am satisfied that your involvement was peripheral
and a consequence of
your relationship with others. You were not an initiator and went along with what
they did. There is no evidence
that there was an actual functioning laboratory in
either the garage or the car.       I consider that a starting point of two years'
imprisonment reflects the culpability of your actions.


[7]    In relation to the dishonesty offending, I note that sentencing would
normally
have taken place in the District Court, but has been transferred here so that a
sentence involving an overview of all offending
can be reached. The high rate of
recovery is a mitigating factor. For the dishonesty offending on its own, a starting
point of up
to two years could have been warranted. However, taking into account

the totality principle, I consider that a cumulative sentence
of one year would be
appropriate, bringing the total starting point to three years' imprisonment.


[8]     I now turn to matters
relating to you personally. You have a bad record in
relation to dishonesty offending, which would warrant some uplift in relation
to the
theft charges. However, as against this there is the factor of the guilty pleas on all
charges at an early opportunity. There
are also signs recorded in the pre-sentence
report of real remorse and at last some understanding on your part of a need for
reform
and to get your life back on track. These factors together would warrant a
discount of at least one-third and possibly more. However,
in addition to this there
are other factors, which in ordinary circumstances would mean that the discount
could be as high as 60
percent or even two-thirds.


[9]     It is also necessary to take into account the fact that you have spent
approximately six months
in custody awaiting sentence.


[10]    Both Crown and defence accept that in the circumstances home detention is
an appropriate
option. The probation service has prepared the usual report and
confirmed that an address at 22 Roundtree Place, Takanini, is appropriate,
and that
the proposed occupants and support are suitable. You have signed a document
showing that you understand what is involved
in home detention, and agreed to
comply.


[11]    Given the other factors that I have referred to and the long period you have
already
spent on remand in custody, I consider that a very modest term of home
detention is the appropriate sentence. I propose sentencing
you to three months'
home detention. This will apply to all counts, and the sentence will be concurrent on
each.


[12]    Could
you stand up Ms Pidduck. You are sentenced to three months' home
detention on each count. Those sentences to be concurrent.

[13]
  The following special conditions are imposed, which relate to home
detention:


       a)      Immediately following this sentencing process you will travel
to
               22 Roundtree Place, Takanini, Manukau City, and there await the
               arrival of the probation officer
and a representative of the electronic
               monitoring company.


       b)      You will reside at 22 Roundtree Place,
Takanini, Manukau City, for
               the duration of your sentence of home detention of three months.


       c)      You
must not possess or consume alcohol or illegal drugs for the
               duration of your sentence of home detention.


     
 d)      You must undertake and complete a rehabilitative programme
               administered by the Department of Corrections,
and abide by the rules
               of the programme to the satisfaction of the programme provider and
               probation
officer.


[14]   Ms Pidduck, this is a very lenient sentence. It is imposed with the support of
Crown and defence. There is a real
sign here that you have turned your life around.
You obviously have intelligence and a good future if you want it. I do hope you
will
take this opportunity.




                                                              ...............................
  
                                                                                Asher J