R v Beckham HC Auckland CRI 2008-404-029112 [2011] NZHC 1598 (12 August 2011)

Last Updated: 22 November 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

_{CRI 2008-404-029112}

THE QUEEN

v

MAX JOHN BECKHAM JENNY MAREE TAYLOR

Hearing: 12 August 2011

Appearances: D Johnstone for Crown

S Bonnar and E Harrison for Prisoner, M J Beckham

W McKean for Prisoner, J M Taylor

Judgment: 12 August 2011

_{SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREWS J}

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, PO Box 2213, Auckland 1140 [e-mail]

Counsel: S J Bonnar, PO Box 2764, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140

[e-mail]

E Harrison, C/o Criminal Defence Office Limited, PO Box 1982, Auckland 1140 [e-mail]

Webb Ross, Private Bag 9012, Whangarei 0148 [e-mail]

R V BECKHAM AND TAYLOR HC AK CRI 2008-404-029112 12 August 2011

Mr Beckham

Charges

[1] Mr Beckham you appear today for sentencing today having been convicted following a trial by jury on two charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, two counts of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine, two counts of possession of methamphetamine for supply, eight counts of supplying methamphetamine, one count of conspiring to supply methamphetamine, one count each of supplying cocaine, supplying MDMA, possession of MDMA for supply, conspiring to supply MDMA, conspiring to produce cannabis oil, and possession of cannabis plant for supply, and three counts of money laundering. Two of the charges – one of manufacturing methamphetamine and one of supplying methamphetamine – are representative charges.

[2] As you know, you are subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment on the charges of manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine and cocaine, and possessing methamphetamine for supply. On the other charges you are subject to maximum sentences of between seven and 14 years imprisonment.

Relevant facts

[3] The facts of your offending were well covered in the evidence given at your trial. Your offending was disclosed from two Police operations, in 2006 and 2008. I have concluded, on the basis of the evidence heard and the jury’s verdicts, that you were involved with manufacturing methamphetamine during the period from 2006 to

2008, and that the scale of the manufacture was substantial. This is on the basis of evidence that when the Police operation was terminated in December 2008 you had with you $300,000 which was intended to be used to buy pseudoephedrine which could be made into methamphetamine. It is also on the basis of the evidence from intercepted communications, and your own references to the quantities of methamphetamine you handled. I accept the Crown’s submission that your convictions on conspiracy to manufacture show that you had a number of sources of methamphetamine under your control.

[4] The scale of your dealings in methamphetamine is shown by the convictions for supply and conspiracy to supply, and by what was found when the 2008 operation was terminated. Four ounces of methamphetamine was found in your vehicle, and nine ounces was found hidden near the driveway to your house. These were valued at $40,000 and $90,000 respectively. You were also heard, in an intercepted communication, discussing dealings involving 2 kg of methamphetamine. Further, more than $500,000 in cash was found at your house.

[5] The jury also convicted you on three charges of money laundering – that is, dealing with the proceeds of your drug dealing in an attempt to conceal where it had come from. About $250,000 was put through accounts which was then used to buy an apartment, and $25,000 was moved through a third party’s bank account.

[6] In this sentence, I will first refer to the pre-sentence report, and then I will refer briefly to the relevant purposes and principles of sentencing. Then I will refer to counsel’s submissions before going through the process of establishing the appropriate sentence.

Pre-sentence report

[7] I turn first to consider the pre-sentence report. You are 63 years old. Before your arrest on these charges you were living at your property at Mangonui, Auckland, with your wife Ms Taylor and your two young children. You reported having had a good upbringing, and you have lived and worked in Northland all your life. You worked as an agricultural contractor and farmer, and more recently you have been involved in property development. The report refers to the death of your eldest child with Ms Taylor in 2003, and that was also referred to during the trial. You told the report writer that it was your son’s death that triggered your use of drugs.

[8] You accepted the majority of your offending and said there was no one to blame but yourself. You said that after your son’s death you started using drugs to take you away from the reality. Your addiction to methamphetamine began in 2005.

You have now seen how your offending affected Ms Taylor and your children. You accepted that a lengthy term of imprisonment will be imposed.

Sentencing process

[9] I turn then to the process of sentencing. The first step in sentencing you is to establish a starting point. The starting point is the sentence that would be imposed on the most serious of the charges on which you have been convicted, before any adjustments are made for your other offending, or for any matters that relate to you, personally. The second step is to take that starting point and decide what the appropriate sentence is for you, for your offending. I do this by considering whether there is anything about your offending that makes it more (or less) serious – these are aggravating or mitigating factors, and they may lead me to impose a sentence that is greater or less than the starting point. I also consider matters that relate to you, personally, because these may also lead me to adjust your final sentence.

[10] When I sentence you I have to take into account the purposes and principles of sentencing. First, as to the purposes of sentencing, I have to hold you accountable

– I have to hold you responsible for your own offending. I have to consider deterrence – of you and others – and protection of the community. I also have to denounce your offending – what this means is to tell you that your offending is not acceptable in New Zealand society. At the same time, the purpose of sentencing any offender is to help the offender to get back into the community as a useful member of it.

[11] There is also a need to protect the community from methamphetamine. This Court deals regularly with cases involving methamphetamine offending. Every person who is involved in this Court is very well aware of the social and financial cost to families and to the community that follows from the use of methamphetamine It is destructive, it is devastating, and its effects are seen in New Zealand courts every single day.

[12] Then as to the principles of sentencing, I take into account the gravity of your offending, including your culpability, and the seriousness of your offending in

comparison with other types of offences. I have regard to maintaining consistency in appropriate sentencing levels, and I am directed to impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.

Starting point

[13] I therefore come to the starting point. As I said earlier, I set the starting point by reference to the most serious offence. In your case I propose to set a starting point by reference to count 1 (which is the count of supply of methamphetamine), count 51 (which is possession of methamphetamine for supply) and count 55 (which is also possession of methamphetamine for supply).

[14] In sentencing on methamphetamine charges this Court is guided by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Fatu.1 In that case the Court of Appeal set four levels, or bands, which are applied in sentencing for supply and manufacturing methamphetamine. Those bands depend on the quantity involved. The lowest band is for less than 5 grams, the highest is 500 grams or more. It is clear that in your case the highest band applies, as I have to assess the starting point on the basis of the charge of supplying 2 kg of methamphetamine (count 1), and the charges of possession for supply relating to the 4 and 9 ounces found on your arrest (counts 51

and 55). In band 4, the range is 10 years to life imprisonment. I have to decide where your offending fits within that band, and what adjustments have to be made to take proper account of your other offending. I have to consider the scale of the offending, and your role in it.

[15] Mr Johnstone submitted that I should adopt an initial starting point of 17 to

18 years imprisonment. He submitted that this was appropriate to take into account the scale of manufacture and dealing. He then submitted that the starting point should be increased to take account of the other drugs offending and the money laundering charges, but also taking into account the totality of your offending. Overall, he submitted, the adjusted starting point for these offences should be

_{between 18 and 20 years imprisonment, before any personal factors are considered.}

1 R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA).

[16] Mr Bonnar accepted that a starting point in the fourth band of Fatu is appropriate, but submitted that the initial starting point should be 12 years, in relation to counts 1, 51, and 55. He then submitted that an increase of two years for the other drugs charges and the money laundering charges would be appropriate, to arrive at an end sentence of 14 years imprisonment. As you heard, Mr Bonnar submitted strongly that I should adopt the same starting point for your offending, as had been adopted for the sentencing of one of your co-accused Mr Rogers, who was

sentenced in respect of count 1 in October 2010.2 He submitted also that to adopt a

higher starting point for you would lead to a considerable disparity.

[17] Before I discuss those submissions, I need to refer to other starting points adopted for drug offending in other cases which are on a similar scale. I know, of course, no cases are ever identical, but these are a guide for the purposes of consistency. I intend to refer to three cases.

[18] In the case of R v Gollop3 six drug ring members were sentenced. They had been involved in stockpiling materials for manufacture, then manufacture and on- supply of methamphetamine. The sentencing Judge was satisfied that close to 1.5kg had been manufactured. One of the offenders, Mr Kissling, had been convicted on counts of manufacturing, conspiracy to manufacture, supplying, and offering to supply methamphetamine. For that offender the Judge adopted a starting point of

16 years imprisonment.

[19] The second case I will refer to is that of R v McQuade:4 Mr McQuade was sentenced for 19 drug related offences which ranged from manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of related equipment and materials, through to possession of methamphetamine for supply, and supply. Mr McQuade was sentenced on the basis of 1.5kg of methamphetamine possessed for supply. On the facts however, it was obvious that Mr McQuade was a frequent dealer. The sentencing Judge considered that that confirmed his scale of activity. For Mr

_{McQuade, the Judge adopted a starting point of 17 years imprisonment.}

2 _{R v Rogers HC Auckland CRI-2010-404-93, 15 October 2010.}

3 _{R v Gollop HC Auckland CRI-2006-092-16424, 13 February 2009.}

4 R v McQuade HC Auckland CRI-2006-019-8458, 10 September 2008.

[20] Finally, in the case of R v Huang,5 two offenders were sentenced for supplying methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine for supply. Mr Huang was convicted on six charges of supplying methamphetamine, involving about 2.85kg of methamphetamine. The starting point for him was 17 years’ imprisonment. The second offender was sentenced on the basis of dealings of approximately 5.4kg. He had had a significant hand in the drug dealing. The starting point for his sentence was 20 years’ imprisonment.

[21] I need now to refer to the sentencing of Mr Rogers, which I mentioned before. Mr Rogers was sentenced on count 1, in the same terms as count 1 in your indictment – the supply of 2kg of methamphetamine. The sentencing Judge, Lang J, adopted a starting point for Mr Rogers of ten years imprisonment. He found that what distinguished Mr Rogers from you was that Mr Rogers was, in his words, a delivery person or courier who received drugs and distributed them on your behalf. Justice Lang said that if Mr Rogers had himself been a drug dealer, he would have been justified in selecting a starting point of around 16 years on that charge. The starting point that he adopted of ten years was based on the lesser role that he concluded Mr Rogers had played.

[22] Finally, I refer to your own sentencing in the District Court at Whangarei on

3 August 2011, on one count of kidnapping, one count of committing a crime with a firearm, and one count of conspiring to pervert the course of justice.6 I have been told that those charges are related to the two drums of cannabis head that were the subject of count 56 in your indictment in this Court. The drums of cannabis head, as I understand it, had gone missing. You accused a man of having stolen them, and then you and your two co-accused (one of whom was Mr Rogers) used violence to

ensure its return. From an overall starting point of nine years imprisonment, and allowing for totality, you were sentenced to seven years six months imprisonment on the kidnapping charge, with concurrent sentences on the other charges. Mr Rogers was also convicted on similar charges, and was sentenced to five years imprisonment. That sentence allowed for totality, and the Judge bore in mind that

_{Mr Rogers was already serving a sentence.}

5 _{R v Huang HC Auckland CRI-2006-019-8458, 8 May 2009.}

6 R v Beckham DC Whangarei CRI-2008-029-959, 3 August 2011.

[23] As I have said earlier, it is clear that your offending is within band 4 of Fatu. I have found that you were a significant supplier and involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine between 2006 and 2008. This is evidenced by the amount of methamphetamine found, the amount of cash found, and the frequency of your contacts with your customers and suppliers in Auckland. Also, as was pointed out in the Crown’s written submissions, there were a number of conspiracies to manufacture methamphetamine that you were involved in.

[24] Having considered the submissions made by Mr Johnstone and Mr Bonnar, I do not accept that you were anything less than the primary offender. I have heard the conversation relied on in Mr Rogers’ sentencing, and of course it was played in your own trial, and I heard the other evidence given at trial. I have carefully considered Mr Bonnar’s submissions but in the end I agree with the conclusion reached by Lang J, which was that Mr Rogers was a part of your dealing operations, and acted on your behalf, particularly when from time to time you were away.

[25] As to where your offending fits in band 4, I have concluded that the starting point should be based on the amounts that you were found to have supplied and to have in your possession for supply. The total amount of methamphetamine involved, on my calculations, is 2 kg for count 1, together with the 4 ounces (112 grams) for count 51, and 9 ounces (252 grams) for count 55. That comes to about 2.36 kg. However, clearly the amounts involved were more than that. Counts 11, 22, 23, 39,

40, 45 and 50 all relate to the supply of methamphetamine. Some of them specify amounts. However, it is not clear whether the amounts specified relate to ounces or grams, and I do not propose to speculate because obviously there is a significant difference between, for example, a ¼ gram and a ¼ ounce.

[26] Further, while the individual, specific, charges must be considered, I also take into account that your offending clearly spanned a period of at least one and a half years.

[27] Taking into account the cases that I have referred to, and the facts that are specific to your case, I will adopt a starting point of 17 years imprisonment for each of counts 1, 51, and 55. That is in line with the sentences I have referred to. I am

satisfied that that starting point takes into account the appropriate parity with Mr Rogers’ term of imprisonment. I have concluded that a starting point could not be any less than 17 years, in order to achieve the purposes and principles of sentencing for methamphetamine offending, and to be consistent with other similar cases.

Adjustments to starting point

[28] To that 17 year starting point must be added an increase, or uplift, to reflect your other drug related charges. It will be uplifted by one year to reflect the charges of manufacturing and conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine.

[29] As well, there must be an uplift for the other drugs charges, those were supplying cocaine, supplying MDMA, conspiring to supply MDMA, possession of MDMA for supply, conspiring to produce cannabis oil and possession of cannabis plant for supply. Those charges are by no means insignificant. I accept what was submitted to me in Mr Johnstone’s written submissions, that if you were to be sentenced on the cannabis charges alone, you would be looking at a starting point of close to three years’ imprisonment. However, on the basis of totality, I consider that an uplift of one further year is sufficient. That takes the adjusted starting point to 19 years imprisonment.

[30] Turning, then, to the money laundering charges, your offending would place you in the region of three to three and a half years imprisonment for each charge. Sentencing on charges such as these in the context of drugs offending is normally approached on the basis of uplift to the sentence for the drugs charges. However, having regard to the totality principle, I have concluded that it is not necessary to apply any uplift on top of the adjusted starting point.

[31] I turn now to consider whether any further adjustment is required for matters that relate to you, personally, to arrive at the end sentence. You have previous convictions, one of which was for a minor offence relating to cannabis plant possession, but I do not consider that that warrants any uplift.

[32] Mr Johnstone submitted that an uplift was required because the offending on which I am now sentencing you, occurred while you were on bail for the Whangarei charges and that this required a further uplift. Mr Bonnar did not accept this because, he said, there was a significant degree of overlap between the two sets of offences, and because you have already been sentenced for the Whangarei matters. I do not necessarily accept that submission, but I have concluded that I do not need to decide the point because any uplift necessary is taken into account when I consider totality principles.

[33] Mr Bonnar has also submitted that I should take into account the circumstances surrounding the death of your son, your health problems, the regard in which you have been held in the Northland community, and the loss of standing that results from these convictions. I am not satisfied that any significant reduction is justified on the basis of those matters but I have allowed for a reduction of six months. That leads me to a final sentence of 18 years and six months imprisonment.

[34] However, as you will have heard me say to counsel, I must look at the totality of your offending, and your sentences. In this respect, I take into account that you are now serving the sentence of seven and a half years imprisonment imposed in Whangarei. You will have heard me discuss with counsel how that should be addressed. Mr Johnstone submitted that the sentences I impose today should be served cumulative upon, that is, in addition to, the Whangarei sentence. He acknowledged that it would be appropriate to consider whether a reduction in the sentence today should be allowed to take account of the total length of the sentence to be served. Mr Bonnar submitted that it would be appropriate for me to order that the sentences I impose today be served concurrently, that is, at the same time as, the Whangarei sentences. For his part, he acknowledged that it would be appropriate to apply an uplift to the sentences today to reflect the totality of your offending.

[35] I adjourned this sentencing briefly so that I could give consideration to the matter because it was not something that counsel had addressed in their written submissions. I have concluded that it would be wrong, in principle, to impose a concurrent sentence because that would require me to apply an uplift which would result in the sentences I am imposing today, for the offending on which I am

sentencing you, which is higher than that which I believe is appropriate. Accordingly, while I have concluded that when the two sentences of seven and a half years and 18 ½ years put together would be out of all proportion to the totality of your offending, I do propose to impose a sentence that is cumulative (to be served in addition to the Whangarei sentence), but I will impose a sentence today which is less than that which is otherwise appropriate for your offending. That is, I will be reducing the sentence imposed today so as to ensure that, overall, the sentences that you will serve will be appropriate to the totality of your offending.

[36] Mr Beckham, would you please stand.

Sentence

[37] (a) On each of counts 1 (supplying methamphetamine) and 51 and 55, both of which are possession of methamphetamine for supply, you are sentenced to 13 years and six months imprisonment. As I said before, that term has been reduced in order to reflect the totality of the sentences you will be serving.

(b) On each of counts 10 and 36 (which are manufacturing methamphetamine), you are also sentenced to 13 years and six months imprisonment.

(c) On each of counts 28, and 44 (conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine) you are sentenced to eight years imprisonment.

(d) On each of counts 11, 22, 23, 39, 40, 45 and 50, all of which are charges of supplying methamphetamine, you are sentenced to three years imprisonment.

(e) On count 24 (conspiracy to supply methamphetamine), you are sentenced to two years imprisonment.

(f) On count 48 (supply of cocaine), you are sentenced to three years imprisonment.

(g) On count 38 (supply of MDMA), you are sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

(h) On count 53 (possession of MDMA for supply), you are sentenced to

18 months imprisonment.

(i) On count 26 (conspiracy to supply MDMA), you are sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.

(j) On count 49 (conspiracy to produce cannabis oil) you are sentenced to two years imprisonment.

(k) On count 56 (possession of cannabis for supply) you are sentenced to two years six months imprisonment.

(l) On each of counts 19, 20 and 46 (money laundering) you are sentenced to three years imprisonment.

[38] All of the sentences I have imposed today are to be served concurrently as between each other, but cumulatively upon the sentence you are already serving.

[39] The effect of these sentences is that you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 13 years and six months, over and above that which you are currently serving.

Minimum period of imprisonment

[40] Counsel for the Crown has submitted that I should order that you serve a specified minimum period of imprisonment before you can be considered for release on parole. Under s 86 of the Sentencing Act 2000, I may impose a minimum period of imprisonment for the purpose of holding you accountable for harm done to the community, denouncing the conduct in which you were involved, deterring you or other persons from committing this type of offence, and protecting the community. If imposed the minimum period may not be more than two-thirds of the full term or ten years, whichever is less.

[41] I am in no doubt that the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine is a serious problem in New Zealand and that a minimum period of imprisonment is justified to ensure that your sentence provides for accountability, denunciation, and deterrence. I am also conscious that the effect of today’s sentencing is that it will be a long time before you will be released on parole.

[42] I am satisfied that it is appropriate to impose a minimum period of imprisonment, and I do impose a minimum period for seven years in respect of the sentences imposed today on counts 1, 10, 36, 51 and 55.

[43] Mr Beckham, you may be seated.

Ms Taylor

[44] Ms Taylor, I turn to your sentencing. I will ask you to stand later.

Charges

[45] Ms Taylor you appear for sentencing today having been convicted following a jury trial on two charges of money laundering, counts 19 and 20 in the indictment. You are subject to a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment on each charge.

[46] You were tried together with your husband, Mr Beckham, and he was convicted, as you know, on a number of charges involving manufacture and dealing in methamphetamine, and dealing in other drugs. The essence of the charges on which you were found guilty is that you laundered the proceeds of Mr Beckham’s drug dealing.

[47] In convicting you on the two charges, the jury was satisfied that you dealt with cash or cheques, that all or part of the cash or cheques was the proceeds of drug dealing, that you either knew that the money came from drug dealing, or thought it might be and turned a blind eye to that, and that you dealt with the money for the purpose of concealing the fact that it came from drug dealing.

[48] The money the subject of these two charges was subsequently put towards the purchase of an apartment in Auckland. Count 19 in the indictment referred to

$30,000 and count 20 referred to $222,670. Mr Johnstone submitted that I should sentence you on the basis that out of that total sum, $150,000 was the proceeds of drugs offending. Mr McKean submitted that you should be sentenced on the basis that the amount laundered was in fact far less than that. I find that the jury’s verdict shows that it accepted the Crown case in respect of these two charges, and that your sentencing should be on the basis that $150,000 was involved.

Pre-sentence report

[49] I turn first to consider the pre-sentence report concerning you. You are 38 years old and you have lived in Northland all your life. After leaving school you worked until you were pregnant with your and Mr Beckham’s first child. While you are now a full time mother, you are also responsible for doing the accounts for family-owned companies, and it was evident from the evidence given at trial, Ms Taylor, that that is also a full time job.

[50] The report writer says that you continue to deny your offending, saying that Mr Beckham would come home with money to bank, and you would attend to that, without asking where the money had come from. I note that both in his written submissions and his oral submissions today, Mr McKean submitted that your sentencing should proceed on the basis that the money you banked did come from drugs, but that you had turned a blind eye to where it came from, but did not actually know that.

[51] I note that this is your first appearance in Court, and you have been assessed as being at a very low risk or re-offending.

[52] A home detention assessment has been prepared, and your home address, and you personally, have been assessed as being suitable for a sentence of home detention.

Sentencing process

[53] Ms Taylor you will have heard me talking to Mr Beckham about the process of sentencing. I do not intend to repeat that because I have just gone through it. The purposes and principles of sentencing that I apply to you are the same as those I applied in respect of Mr Beckham. I come therefore directly to the starting point.

Starting point

[54] Mr Johnston submitted that you should be sentenced on the basis that you knew that the money you dealt with had come from drug offending. He also submitted that the offending behind these charges, that is the drugs offences, are very serious offences. He submitted that the starting point should be somewhere between three and three and a half years imprisonment. On your behalf Mr McKean submitted that the starting point should not be greater than two and a half years. He also submitted, as I said earlier, that you did not actually know that the money came from drug offending and that for that reason a lower starting point could be considered. Finally, Mr McKean submitted that you had not actually derived any benefit from the offending because the apartment had only been used by you and the children twice during the period of the Police surveillance operation.

[55] You will have heard counsel talking to me about a number of cases discussing the starting point adopted for money laundering offences, and I have of course looked at those cases because they will assist me in assessing a starting point which will maintain consistency between offending.

[56] Both Mr McKean and Mr Johnstone referred to the case of R v McCamish7 where a starting point of three and a half years was adopted, where the money involved was in the order of $800,000.

[57] Counsel also referred to the case of R v Wallace,8 where a starting point of between three and a half years and four years imprisonment was upheld by the Court

of Appeal where an offender’s wife had laundered around about $150,000 of what

she knew to be the proceeds of drug offending.

[58] In the case of R v Sorby,9 the offender had pleaded guilty to one charge of money laundering but it was on four separate transactions each of which involved

$100,000. The money was drug related. The offender had received out of that only the limited benefit of around $8,000-10,000. The starting point adopted there was three years three months imprisonment.

[59] In the case of R v Simanu,10 I have looked particularly at the starting point adopted for Ms Sauer. She had been in a relationship with a drug dealer for some two years and had received money to help her and her children get by. She was sentenced on the basis that her money laundering offending involved almost

$85,000. The Judge found that she was reckless as to the origins of the money, rather than actually knowing where it came from, and had only received small sums of money. The starting point adopted for her was 20 months imprisonment.

[60] I have concluded, again after having sat through the trial, that your involvement in Mr Beckham’s offending was of course very limited when compared to the extent of his activity. I also accept that on the two charges you were convicted, they comprise essentially a single set of transactions which took place over a relatively brief period, that is the month of July 2008. In that regard, your offending is similar to that in Sorby. There is, also, little evidence, as Mr McKean submitted, that you benefited from the offending and I accept that is a relevant factor.

[61] You heard both counsel address me as to whether I should sentence you on the basis that you knew the money was from drug offending, or whether you were reckless as to that, and it is relevant to the starting point. Mr Johnstone submitted that as the book-keeper for Mr Beckham’s businesses you had close control over the records and either actually knew or must have known where the money came from, and that it had nothing to do with the legitimate business activities. Against that, Mr McKean submitted that I could conclude, from the fact that the jury did not find you

guilty on other charges, that there are grounds for sentencing you on the basis that you were reckless in that you did not actually know that the money that is the subject of the charges on which you were convicted, was the proceeds of drug offending.

[62] I propose to sentence you on the basis Mr McKean submitted for, that is, that you were reckless as to the origin of the money involved. I have concluded that the appropriate starting point should be two years imprisonment.

Adjustments to starting point

[63] I turn now to consider what adjustment (if any) should be made to that starting point, to arrive at an end sentence. First, as this is your first appearance in Court, you are entitled to a discount for previous good character. I also take into account the probation officer’s assessment of your low risk of re-offending. Further, I take into account the position of your two young children, who would be likely to suffer if both of their parents were to be imprisoned.

[64] Taking all of those matters into account, I come to an end sentence of 18 months imprisonment.

[65] As I have concluded that a sentence of less than two years imprisonment would be appropriate, I turn then to consider whether the sentence should in fact be one of home detention. Mr McKean submitted that a sentence of home detention would be appropriate, and Mr Johnstone acknowledged that, depending on the starting point adopted and any deductions made, it would be available.

[66] In the circumstances of this case, your own circumstances and your offending, I am satisfied that a sentence of home detention will properly meet the purposes and principles of sentencing,

[67] Would you stand please Ms Taylor.

Sentence

[68] On each of the charges of money laundering (counts 19 and 20 in the indictment) you are sentenced to nine months home detention. The sentences are to be served concurrently. That means, Ms Taylor, that your effective sentence is nine months home detention.

[69] You will be subject to the standard terms of a home detention sentence, together with the following special conditions, which are as they were set out in the pre-sentence report. I will read them through:

(a) Upon receiving the Court order for home detention, you are to travel directly to 144 Midgley Road Mangonui and to await the arrival of the probation officer and a representative of the monitoring company.

(b) You are to reside at 144 Midgley Road Mangonui for the duration of the sentence.

(c) You are not to purchase, possess, or consume alcohol and/or illicit drugs for the duration of the sentence

(d) You are not to permit alcohol and/or illicit drugs at the home detention address

(e) You are to attend and complete an appropriate parenting programme to the satisfaction of your probation officer and programme provider. Details of the appropriate programme are to be determined by your probation officer.

(f) You are to undertake budgeting advice with the Kaitaia Family

Budgeting Services to the satisfaction of the probation officer.

(g) You are to undertake any other counselling or programmes as directed by your probation officer.

[70] You may be seated.

[71] Before I rise I would like to acknowledge and thank those people who have attended today in support of Mr Beckham and Ms Taylor. Mr Beckham and Ms Taylor are, I am sure, most grateful for your support. I also acknowledge the letter that I have received from Ms Taylor’s parents and understand the fact that they are

_{not able to be here.}

Andrews J