R V HENRY DALE RANGIHUNA HC PMN CRI 2008-054-1871 [2009] NZHC 1385 (7 October 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY
                                                                   CRI
2008-054-1871



                                   THE QUEEN



                                          v



                
         HENRY DALE RANGIHUNA



Hearing:      7 October 2009

Counsel:      E McCaughan for Crown
              F D Steedman for
Accused

Sentence:     7 October 2009


                      SENTENCE OF RONALD YOUNG J



[1]    Mr Rangihuna you are for sentence
today on two charges to which you
pleaded guilty, offering to supply methamphetamine and possession of a
methamphetamine pipe.


[2]    The events arose from the police detection of drug dealing in the
Horowhenua area through intercepted conversations and texts
and other investigation
techniques.


[3]    You were involved generally with a number of those involved in dealing
drugs in that
area. The particular facts on which you are to be sentenced is that you
offered to sell half an ounce (14 grams) of methamphetamine
to another person for



R V HENRY DALE RANGIHUNA HC PMN CRI 2008-054-1871 7 October 2009

$7,700. The purchaser turned up with
the money but for some reason you were
unable to supply the drugs. I return to that aspect later.


[4]    At the end of the operation
when the police searched your premises they
found a methamphetamine pipe which you acknowledged was yours.


[5]    You do have a
number of drug convictions and other serious violent
convictions in your past.     You have five previous drug convictions mainly
for
cannabis but I acknowledge that none have resulted in imprisonment. You have,
however, been imprisoned for violent offending.


[6]    These offences occurred not long after your most recent imprisonment for
violent offending. You are fifty-one years of age
and the remarkable thing about that
is that you are still offending and have now been offending for over thirty years.


[7]    You
identify your addiction to methamphetamine as playing a major part in
your offending. You were assessed by the probation officer
as being at medium risk
of re-offending, at high risk if you returned to live with your previous partner who
clearly has a serious
drug addiction problem and is likely to drag you further into
drug use.


[8]    The Crown say the offending of offering to supply
14 grams of
methamphetamine puts you in band 2 of R v Fatu  [2006] 2 NZLR 72. The Crown
say there is every reason to believe that you did have the capacity to supply some
amount of methamphetamine. They say
a starting sentence of two and a half years is
appropriate with uplifts for past offending and possession of a pipe acknowledging
your plea of guilty as in mitigation.


[9]    I take into account what your counsel Mr Steedman has said to me both
orally and his
written submissions. He stresses that your past drug convictions are at
the lower end of the spectrum without imprisonment. He says
that overall you had
very little involvement in the many recorded conversations relating to this drug
dealing. At interview with
the police you repeatedly stressed that you had no
methamphetamine to actually supply. He says that the proper starting point is
near

the bottom end of Band 2 of Fatu. He accepts that in the circumstances home
detention is not possible and accepts a sentence
of imprisonment is the appropriate
sentence. He says a starting sentence of two years and a final sentence of twelve to
eighteen
months is appropriate.


[10]   Mr Rangihuna dealing in Class A drugs such as methamphetamine will result
in imprisonment other than
in the most unusual circumstances and there are no
unusual circumstances here.       If you had actually supplied the 14 grams of
methamphetamine that could easily have resulting in a starting sentence of three and
a half to four years' imprisonment.


[11] 
 However, I must take into account that this was only an offer to supply. Of
course it is not possible for me to know whether you
were able to supply the
methamphetamine but it seems unlikely that you were. However, it could hardly be
said that you are unknown
in the drug scene or a newcomer at all to the drug scene.
Obviously the intercepted conversations revealed your involvement and your
past
convictions and possession of the methamphetamine pipe illustrate that.


[12]   I agree with the Crown that a proper starting
point to take into account that
this was an offering to supply is two and a half years' imprisonment. I do not
consider that any
uplift is required for past offending or for possession of the pipe
which is subsumed in the overall sentence.


[13]   The only
mitigating factor is your guilty plea. You pleaded guilty three
months before trial. You were charged in November 2007. Your plea
was after you
were involved in an unsuccessful challenge to the admissibility of evidence. In those
circumstances a 15% discount
is appropriate for a slightly generous five months
deduction.


[14]   I therefore sentence you on the methamphetamine offering to
supply charge
to two years and one month imprisonment. I impose a sentence of one month
concurrent on the possession of a pipe. You
are not, therefore, eligible for home
detention but even if you had been given your past convictions, the domestic

violence and
the fact that there is no suitable residence available would have meant I
would not have imposed a sentence of home detention.




                                                       ___________________________
                                           
                         Ronald Young J

Solicitors:
E McCaughan, Ben Vanderkolk & Associates, PO Box 31, Palmerston North
email:
[e-mail]
F D Steedman, Barrister, 97 Broadway Avenue, Palmerston North
email: [e-mail]