R v Strachan [2013] NZHC 1711 (5 July 2013)

Last Updated: 12 August 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-069-251 [2013] NZHC 1711

THE QUEEN

v

_{RAE-CHAEL REYNAE STRACHAN}

Charge:

_Plea:

Supplying Class A controlled drug

_Guilty

Counsel: PP Crayton for Crown

WN Dollimore for Prisoner

Sentenced: 5 July 2013

_{SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J}

Solicitors: Almao Douch (Hamilton) for Crown

Wayne Dollimore (Hamilton) for Prisoner

R v STRACHAN [2013] NZHC 1711 [5 July 2013]

Introduction

[1] Ms Strachan, you have pleaded guilty to supplying methamphetamine. The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment.

[2] In this case, I have to decide whether you serve a term of imprisonment or whether a community based sentence is available to you.

Facts

[3] You were in a relationship with a large scale manufacturer of methamphetamine. From text messages obtained by the Police for the period August

2011 to January 2012, it was calculated that you supplied 28 grams of methamphetamine in amounts of up to six grams. For some of these transactions you were acting as an intermediary for your ex partner but on other occasions you approached buyers directly. When your ex partner, Mr Harries, was arrested in February 2012, you were at his address and you were arrested also. You admitted to supplying methamphetamine on his behalf.

Personal circumstances

[4] Ms Strachan, you are 29 years old. You are a mother of two young children. You were in your relationship with Mr Harries for about two years. You now say that you felt trapped and intimidated and had plans to leave Mr Harries.

[5] You say that you started to use cannabis and methamphetamine at the age of

18 and that you have been addicted to methamphetamine. Your drug consumption has decreased since your arrest but you have candidly admitted to using cannabis. Your alcohol consumption has also increased and the pre-sentence report writer has expressed a concern that given your history of dependence your use of illicit substances could escalate. That, of course, is of significant concern to the Court when I consider that if I do not send you to prison you will be put back in charge of young children.

[6] I note that you have completed an alcohol and drug counselling course with Care New Zealand and that you say, perhaps naively, you are no longer addicted to drugs. You are willing to continue with community based intervention to support your current abstinence.

[7] You have one previous conviction for possession of LSD. This was entered in 2011 and you were ordered to come up for sentence if called upon. You have said that Mr Harries was the source of the LSD.

[8] You have been candid in your account of your offending. You knew it was wrong and you knew that you and Mr Harries would get into trouble eventually. The writer of your pre-sentence report was impressed with your insight into the effect of your actions, especially its effect on your children. You said that your arrest has allowed you to address your drug use and that if you had not been arrested you would likely still be using methamphetamine.

[9] I see that you have significant support from your family.

[10] I note also that you have been assessed as having a low risk of reoffending, given you are addressing your drug use, and have disassociated from your previous associates. You have, as Mr Dollimore says, been co-operative with the Police. The pre-sentence report recommends a sentence of home detention and community work.

[11] I have received a letter from you in which you express your remorse. You describe your relationship with Mr Harries and your love for your children. You have plans for the future. I have also received positive character references.

Starting Point

[12] Ms Strachan, offending of your sort is covered by a case called R v Fatu.[1]

_{Your offending falls within band two as it is described in that case.}

[13] The Crown’s submission is that a starting point in the range of three years’ imprisonment is appropriate because you were supplying commercial quantities of methamphetamine. You were both an intermediary in facilitating the delivery of methamphetamine for Mr Harries and a supplier on your own account.

[14] Your lawyer, Mr Dollimore, submits your offending should be regarded as being at the low level of commercial supply. He emphasises that you played a secondary role and that you were negatively influenced by Mr Harries. Mr Dollimore’s submission is that your offending falls at the bottom end of band two of R v Fatu and that you should be categorised as a low level dealer.

[15] In sentencing you today, I have to balance the interests of society and your personal interests. Methamphetamine is a very dangerous drug and I must hold you accountable for the harm you have done to the community. I have to denounce your crime and impose a sentence which might deter others from committing similar crimes. I have to be aware of the need to protect the community from you. However, I must also provide for your rehabilitation and your reintegration into society. There is a need to impose on you the least restrictive sentence in the circumstances.

[16] I must try to be consistent with sentences imposed on others in your position, and I have had regard to the cases to which I have been referred by the lawyers.

[17] I set the starting point for your offending at three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment. I will discount the starting point by 25% to acknowledge your personal position, including your lack of a significant criminal record, and more particularly your efforts towards rehabilitation, your remorse and the needs of your family.

[18] Normally I would give you no such reduction for the entry of pleas of guilty because of the amount of time that passed between you being charged and you entering pleas of guilty. But I accept the submissions of your lawyer today that your previous lawyer simply did not give you the information you needed in order to make a proper choice.

[19] Accordingly, I am going to give you the full discount, an additional discount, of 25% to take account of the entry of the pleas of guilty. That leads to an end sentence of one year and 10 months’ imprisonment. That means I must consider whether you should be sentenced to home detention.

[20] I am satisfied that home detention is appropriate in your case. The reasons are the same as the reasons that justify the discount on sentence for your personal factors. A sentence of home detention can, in appropriate cases, adequately reflect the punitive aspects of sentencing. I am satisfied that they do so in your case. However, in terms of the harm you have done to the community, I am also going to impose on you a requirement for community work.

Sentence

[21] Ms Strachan, you are sentenced to 11 months’ home detention with the

following conditions:

[a] You are to travel directly from the Court to 14 Otewa Road, Otorohanga and await the arrival of the monitoring company and the probation officer for the installation of the monitoring equipment;

[b] You will reside at that address and not leave it without an approved absence as issued by the probation officer. I make the point that the probation officer will be able to approve absences for the purpose of you completing life skills courses;

[c] You are not to consume illicit drugs or alcohol;

[d] You are to attend and complete any drug and alcohol programme as may be directed to the satisfaction of your probation officer and programme provider;

[e] You are to attend and complete any other programme or training intended to assist in preventing reoffending if directed by, and to the satisfaction of, your probation officer and programme provider.

[22] You are further sentenced to 150 hours’ community work.

[23] Ms Strachan, you very nearly went to prison. Not only is dealing in methamphetamine an offence which goes all the way up to life imprisonment, but you were associated with a large scale manufacturer who is now serving 14 years’ imprisonment. I have given you a chance. The main reason I have given you the chance is that you do not have a significant criminal record. I am looking at you as essentially appearing in Court for the first time. You only get that opportunity once. If you do not live up to the potential that you have convinced the writer of the pre- sentence report that you have and you come back before the Court, you will almost certainly go to prison. Take this opportunity.

_{[24] You may stand down.}

Brewer J

---

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