R v Edwards [2012] NZHC 2959 (8 November 2012)

Last Updated: 30 November 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI 2011-054-463 [2012] NZHC 2959

THE QUEEN

v

HUIA MAXWELL EDWARDS

Hearing: 8 November 2012 (Heard at Wellington)

Counsel: J Eng for Crown

M J Bullock for Accused

Sentence: 8 November 2012

_{SENTENCE OF RONALD YOUNG J}

[1] Mr Edwards, you are for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply and one charge of manufacturing methamphetamine. That guilty plea came after I gave a sentence indication of nine and a half years’ imprisonment.

[2] Your offending was discovered as part of a Police investigation known as Operation Stamp which intercepted communications into a large methamphetamine network of which you were a member. You were based in Hamilton. In partnership with your co-offenders, you would receive precursor material, organise its manufacture into methamphetamine, and ensure that it was then delivered typically

_{to Palmerston North.}

R V HUIA MAXWELL EDWARDS HC PMN CRI 2011-054-463 [8 November 2012]

[3] More specifically, on 20 November 2010 you provided methamphetamine, somewhere between 400 and 800 grams to a co-offender to be transported to Palmerston North. Subsequently on 3 January 2011, you met your co-offender and collected further precursor material.

[4] You then, on 12 January of that year, after the manufacture into methamphetamine, organised for it to be uplifted to another co-offender. On this occasion I think just over 400 grams was involved. And so the arrangements that you entered into for the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine was somewhere between 1.2 and 1.6 kilograms of the drug. This was obviously, therefore, very serious methamphetamine dealing and it was commercial dealing.

[5] The pre-sentence report mentions that you are now 35 years of age and you have a partner of 18 years with four children. You have been on electronic bail until now. Your last income related job was three years ago. You say that you have no alcohol problems and have not smoked drugs yourself but you have said, however, you are motivated to attend drug counselling.

[6] The report notes that you are a patched member of the Mongrel Mob and in fact have held a position as president of the Mongrel Mob Aoteaora for the last ten years. But you tell the probation officer that you are stepping down from that and have made a decision to leave the gang.

[7] The probation officer says, understandably, that the gang lifestyle and culture is a major part of your offending. The probation officer says that you normalise your actions by repeatedly referring to the supply of methamphetamine as some form of lifestyle. Well of course it is not a lifestyle at all, Mr Edwards. What it is, is the supply of a serious drug to people which will often cause addiction and serious health problems for which you are, in part, responsible.

[8] You have some previous convictions; two drug convictions in 2006 when you were previously imprisoned and it is clear you learnt nothing from that at all. It simply inspired you to more serious offending.

[9] Both counsel rely upon the submissions previous filed and on their oral submissions today. Both accept that your offending is in band four of R v Fatu.[1]

The Crown say that the proper starting point is 13 to 15 years’ imprisonment taking account of the supply and manufacture of the drug along with the gang context. They accept a discount of between 15 and 20 per cent is appropriate for your guilty plea; a small reduction for the lack of purity of the methamphetamine and some small allowance for your compliance on bail. They say that no further matters justify any further reduction.

[10] Your counsel submits that a better starting point is in the range of 12 to

13 years’ imprisonment and that discounts should be given for your guilty plea; lack of purity of the drug; and bail restrictions and that a sentence of nine to nine and a half years is appropriate.

[11] He also submits that some further additional discount should be given for the forfeiture orders made with respect to the $4,100 cash and the Hummer motor vehicle. The Crown say that no discount for forfeiture should be given in these circumstances.

[12] I consider that a proper starting point for your offending is 13 years’ imprisonment. This reflects the fact that this is very serious offending and also the relative position of your co-offender. Both of you were involved in the manufacture and supply of a large amount of methamphetamine as specified and detailed in the summary of facts I have provided.

[13] Turning to the mitigation, I consider 20 per cent should be deducted for your guilty plea. This is a generous allowance given the plea of guilty 18 months after first appearance and shortly before trial but it acknowledges and takes into account the complexity of the case.

[14] As to mitigation with respect to your strict bail conditions, initially you were remanded in custody but then granted electronically monitored bail from May 2011.

_{You have been on bail since but on a 24 hour curfew but with a number of variations}

consented to to allow you to go to medical and legal appointments. So I accept a modest reduction for bail conditions is appropriate.

[15] Finally, the question of purity of the drug supplied. This was below the

60 per cent level set in Fatu at 55 per cent and it is proper that there be some deduction for that.

[16] I give you a discount for bail and purity of seven per cent. Taking into account the discount for your guilty plea that leaves a final sentence of nine and a half years’ imprisonment.

[17] As to the question of forfeiture, I am not prepared to give you any further discount. In my view, this was simply the recovery of money in a vehicle and cash which was drug money. I sentence you to nine and a half years’ imprisonment on both the manufacturing and supply counts of methamphetamine. They are to be of

_{course concurrent.}

_{Ronald Young J}

Solicitors:

J Eng, Luke Cunningham & Clere, Wellington, email: [e-mail]

M J Bullock, Solicitor, Wanganui, email: [e-mail]

---

[1] R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72.