R v Carroll [2014] NZHC 2563 (15 October 2014)

Last Updated: 8 December 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2012-070-4753 [2014] NZHC 2563

THE QUEEN

v

_{RYAN DAVID CARROLL}

Hearing:	15 October 2014
Appearances:	H A Wrigley for Crown W T Nabney for Prisoner
Sentence:	15 October 2014

_{SENTENCE OF KEANE J}

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

R v CARROLL [2014] NZHC 2563 [15 October 2014]

[1] Ryan Carroll you appear for sentence, after trial, for a single offence: conspiring with Karl Goldsbury and your then employee, Terrence Jones, and his partner, Tracey Farrow, between 7 – 9 December 2012, to manufacture methamphetamine at 56 Park Road, Katikati.

[2] I have just sentenced Karl Goldsbury, who instigated and controlled this conspiracy; and, in sentencing him, I held that manufacture did take place at the address on the night of 8 – 9 December 2012. I found also that, though it was impossible to be exact, because the property was burnt down, and he and Mr Jones destroyed much of the equipment used, and the materials, the likely yield must have been approaching 250 grams.

[3] In the sentence I imposed on Mr Goldsbury for the conspiracy I held him accountable for his central and indispensable part so nearly given effect. I must now sentence you for your distinct and secondary part in the conspiracy according to the sentencing purposes and principles I outlined in his case.

Crown submissions

[4] The Crown contends that you are to be held accountable as an intermediary for arranging with your employee, Mr Jones and his partner Ms Farrow, who were tenants of the Katikati property, to allow Mr Goldsbury to manufacture there.

[5] The Crown contends, and in sentencing Mr Goldsbury I accepted, that your part in this conspiracy had three elements. You took Mr Goldsbury, who was without a driver’s licence, to the property on 7 December so he could check it out. You again took him and the purchases he had made for the purpose of manufacture to the property on 8 December. Then between 9.27 pm on 8 December, when you arrived at the address, and the morning of 9 December, when you left to look after your children, you assisted Mr Goldsbury.

[6] The Crown accepts that it is not clear what you were to receive, though you did accept at trial that you were a friend of Mr Goldsbury and, the Crown contends, it is apparent, you have an interest in methamphetamine. You have, I see, a related

conviction in early 2008. But you say that you weaned yourself off methamphetamine then and that is something that I am unable to take any further.

[7] Relying on R v Black,¹ the Crown originally contended that your starting point for the conspiracy ought to lie in the range four and a half – five and a half years. It now accepts that, as a result of my findings as to the scale of manufacture, that must reduce. It contends for a starting point in the vicinity of four years. It does not seek any uplift.

Defence submissions

[8] Your counsel accepts that, as a result of my findings as to your part in the conspiracy, the most that can be said is that your starting point, when related to that taken for Mr Goldsbury, ought to be no higher than three years.

[9] Your counsel does not dispute that you played the role of intermediary. But he equates you with another offender in the Newton conspiracy, Ms Aitken, who found properties for drug offending and allowed her own to be used to store materials and equipment and to manufacture.² Her starting point was two years imprisonment. (However, she was under the violent influence of Mr Newton.)

[10] Finally, your counsel contends that your offending was out of character, that you had a business which you lost as a result of this offending, that your previous offending was relatively minor, and that you have played an indispensable part in your family which needs to be recognised.

Conclusions

[11] You are to be held accountable for actively participating over three days in a conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in which you arranged the address for

_{manufacture and assisted Mr Goldsbury to prepare for and begin manufacture.}

¹ _{R v Black [2012] NZHC 2902.}

² R v Aitken [2012] NZHC 2901.

[12] You must also be sentenced, taking into account that the yield, almost completely accomplished on my finding, must have approached 250 grams, the upper end of band two R v Fatu,³ and the eight year starting point I took for Mr Goldsbury. In your case I take a starting point of three and a half years imprisonment.

[13] There is no factor calling for an uplift in that starting point. Nor strictly, perhaps, do you deserve discount, given your previous convictions. But I am impressed by your pre-sentence report, by the fact that you ultimately became a victim of your own offending, and that in other respects this offending has proved out character in recent years. I allow you a three month discount on that account.

_{[14] You will be sentenced to imprisonment for three years, three months.}

_{P.J. Keane J}

³ R v Fatu [2005] NZCA 278; [2006] 2 NZLR 72.