R v Harding [2016] NZHC 2069 (1 September 2016)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback High Court of New Zealand Decisions

[1] Evanda Harding, at the age of 18 you appear for sentence on six charges which broadly relate, directly or indirectly, to the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine.

[2] In respect of three of the charges you entered pleas of guilty on the morning of the first day of the trial on 27 June 2016. On the balance you were found guilty by a jury after a five week trial.

	Charge No.	Particulars	Plea	Dates of offences	Maximum penalty
1	3	Possession of Class B pseudoephedrine for supply	Guilty	23 October 2014	14 years’ imprisonment
2	4	Manufactured methamphetamine jointly with Brownie Harding, Elijah Rogers, Jaydean Hura and Anthony Mangu (s 66)	Found guilty	28 October 2014 to 31 October 2014	Life imprisonment
3	5	Possession of Class B pseudoephedrine for supply	Guilty	30 October 2014	14 years’ imprisonment
4	6	Manufactured methamphetamine jointly with Brownie Harding, Elijah Rogers, Jaydean Hura and Anthony Mangu (s 66)	Found guilty	6 November 2014 to 14 November 2014	Life imprisonment
5	8	Possession of methamphetamine for supply	Guilty	14 November 2014	Life imprisonment
6	9	Participation in an organised criminal group	Found guilty	23 September 2014 to 16 December 2014	10 years’ imprisonment

[4] At trial you faced three charges of manufacturing methamphetamine. You were convicted on two with the jury unable to reach a verdict on the third. I

discharged the jury from giving a verdict and on the Crown’s application ordered a

[5] I am required to set out the factual background to your offending. I do so despite it being obvious to you what you face sentence for and what the supporting facts are. However, because sentencing is an important function which must be undertaken in public it is necessary that I go through this background in some detail.

[6] Unlike your other co-defendants who I have already sentenced, I have since had the considerable advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence over five weeks of trial. And so these sentencing comments are drawn from that experience. Where in the course of these sentencing remarks I make findings on aggravating factors I do so on the basis of the evidence I heard and to the criminal standard which applies.

[7] In July 2014 the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand (“OFCANZ”) began a large scale covert investigation into the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine in Northland and elsewhere in New Zealand. The operation was codenamed “Easter”. Its focus was an organised group (“the Group”) largely comprised of patched members of the Headhunters Motor Cycle Gang and their affiliates.

[8] The head of the Group was Brownie Joseph Harding. He is your father and he was the one who sourced the equipment and raw materials, recruited the Group’s members and co-ordinated the activities of the various participants involved in the production and distribution of the drug. I will elaborate on your role later in this enterprise later in these sentencing remarks but I accept that it was through your father’s involvement and the influence and dominion he exerted over you that you became embroiled in this ghastly business.

[9] The manufacturing took place at an isolated rural address (the “address”) at the Waiotira end of Taipuha Road, approximately 30 kms southwest of Whangarei. The house in question appears to have been owned by a relative of yours who were, at that time, living in Australia. The house was uninhabited. Its sole use was as a

methamphetamine factory which contained a sophisticated and very substantial laboratory set up for the manufacture of the drug. Huge quantities were manufactured in batches. Various combinations of cooks worked together so that the phases of extraction, conversion, evaporation and processing were undertaken simultaneously with different participants involved at different times and in different tasks. The drugs so produced were then distributed across the Auckland and Northland regions.

[10] Operation Easter spanned approximately four months. The initial surveillance of the address was in the form of a single movement activated video camera. It scanned the north side of the house but the view was limited not only by the angle but by the distance. A second camera was deployed. This was closer to the address and covered the front driveway and eastern profile of the house. On

17 October 2014, after a surveillance device warrant was issued by a Judge of this Court, the Police succeeded in installing a listening device which picked up the sounds and conversation in the kitchen area of the house. Also during the currency of the operation the Special Tactical Group undertook four covert nocturnal entries into the house. These were recorded on film and showed not only the evolving sophistication of the operation, but also its sheer size and complexity.

[11] Through these evidence-gathering techniques the Police were able to identify six separate and discrete manufacturing phases (“phases”) which took place between September and December 2014. These phases were:

[12] After the installation of the listening device the Police were able to determine how much methamphetamine was actually being produced. They were able to undertake this exercise with a degree of precision. It was revealed that the last three manufactures yielded 2545, 1900 and 2800 grams of methamphetamine respectively. In other words, for the last three phases alone, more than 7 kgs of methamphetamine were manufactured. It is not possible, at least with any degree of precision or certainty, to calculate how much methamphetamine was produced in the first three phases before the listening device was installed. It has been suggested that it took some time for the Group to develop the necessary expertise and fine tuning to be able to produce the very substantial quantities which were produced in the later phases. The Crown disagrees. In practice this is an area of contention which I do not need to resolve because, in all practical respects, it makes little or no difference in your case. I am satisfied on the evidence that on any view a truly massive quantity of methamphetamine was produced throughout the period even if I was to accept it is a reasonable possibility the earlier phases were less productive than the later.

[13] But not only were the quantities very substantial indeed but the quality was high. We know that from the methamphetamine found in your possession on

14 November 2014. The 80 ounces taken by you from the last production phase was packaged into one ounce sealed bags and transported by you by car. The Police intercepted the car just north of the harbour bridge. Testing revealed that the purity sat at 73 per cent. You pleaded guilty to that charge on the first day of the trial.

[14] This evidence reveals that those involved in the manufacturing not only had the ability to manufacture in large quantities but they also had the skill and experience to produce it at high purity levels.

[15] Standing back and looking at the operation as a whole there can be no doubt whatsoever that this was a drug manufacturing enterprise operating at the highest commercial level. To describe what went on inside that house as a methamphetamine factory is no hyperbole. On any analysis this was a huge and highly successful undertaking.

[16] While a number of components contributed to the operation’s success, one striking feature was the multiplicity and diversity of the roles of the various participants. In September the operation was relatively modest but grew larger and more sophisticated over the period of interception. Different members of the Group carried out different functions. There were those who worked inside the house either as lead cooks or assisting the cooks. There were those involved in the weighing and packaging the drug for distribution and sale. Others provided assistance by delivering essential equipment and materials or driving the main participants to and from the address. I have also sentenced those who were involved in the distribution of the drug as well as those who helped in the hiding or concealment of the profits generated by the Group’s activities. Some participants assumed multiple roles. Some were involved at the beginning; others later. All, to a greater or lesser extent, worked together in a co-ordinated fashion which ensured the success of the wider operation.

[17] It is against that background I now turn to discuss your specific involvement. I will approach this chronologically; charge by charge.

[18] On 23 October 2014, under instructions by your father, you drove down to Auckland where you picked up a bucket containing roughly 50 sets of ContacNT, a cold and cough medication which contains pseudoephedrine, typically imported from Asia. You took this bucket back to your home in Whangarei and the following day you delivered it to the address so that the product could be converted to methamphetamine which, unsurprisingly, took place four days later when the fifth manufacturing phase commenced.

[19] This charge relates to the fifth manufacturing phase for which you supplied the pseudoephedrine. On two occasions, on 28 October 2014, you were at the

address. The first time you were there for nearly two hours and the second time about six and a half hours.

[20] The intercepted communications for phase 5 are memorable. This is because your father turned up at the address when Jaydean Hura and Elijah Rogers had been very active cooking. Something in the manufacturing process had gone wrong and product leaked out of the apparatus and was lost. Brownie Harding was incandescent with rage. He told the cooks it was their responsibility to recover the lost product. He talked about being accountable to Auckland, no doubt a reference to other senior Headhunter members with whom he was working.

[21] On this charge the Crown put its case to the jury on the alternative basis they could find you guilty as either a secondary party or as a principal who was actively involved in the manufacturing process. While the basis of the jury’s verdict is unknown, I am not satisfied to the necessary standard you were a principal as that term was used by the Crown in the course of your trial.

[22] The Crown put it to the jury that it was you who advised your father of the problems the cooks were encountering. I am not satisfied that is the case either, although in all the circumstances that distinction is not an important one.

[23] What the evidence revealed is that you were involved. You were directed by your father to “stir” something which was being cooked at the time. You were also instructed by your father to go and get some bags of ice and go home. You left, obtained ice, delivered it back to the address and then went home. This was at the time that an active cooking process was going on at the address.

[24] You pleaded guilty to this charge. Your involvement seems to have been another example of the support you gave your father at his request. On 30 October

2014 you collected pseudoephedrine from him which you delivered to the address. You were at the address on two occasions that day; first for one and a half hours and later for 30 minutes.

[26] You delivered the pseudoephedrine while the fifth phase was underway. The quantity was almost 10 kgs.

Charges 6 and 8 (Manufacture and possession of methamphetamine for supply – 6 to

[27] The date range for these charges covers the last phase. By this time your father was serving a sentence of home detention and was confined to the house in Raumanga Valley. You performed several roles during this phase. You conveyed messages from your father and you conveyed information and messages back to him. Originally it was intended that you would be the one who would deliver the 80 ounces of methamphetamine to Auckland. However, because you lost your licence your brother was recruited to drive you, carrying the drugs, down to Auckland.

[28] The evidence reveals that you were very active in this last phase. As with Charge 4, the Crown put its case on the alternative basis you were a secondary party and/or principal in the manufacturing process. I am satisfied on the evidence you were both.

[29] In the days leading up to 14 November 2014 you visited the address on several occasions. Some of those visits were just minutes in duration and convey the distinct impression the purpose was to relay messages from your father to the cooks and to monitor the manufacturing progress which, at that stage, was in full swing.

[30] Your intimate connection with this phase is demonstrated by the fact that you arrived in the very early hours of the morning of 14 November 2014. You remained there for about six hours before leaving and then returning with your brother to take delivery of the 80 ounces of methamphetamine to transport back to Auckland.

[31] Although you did not feature extensively in the intercepted communications that day I am satisfied you played an active role in the manufacturing of methamphetamine at this time. You worked with the other cooks although I accept the degree of expertise and experience which you brought to the activities of that

phase was considerably more modest than the other cooks who were so busy at that time.

[32] And, of course, your role did not stop there. You were entrusted as the custodian of the 80 ounces of methamphetamine which had been manufactured to that point. Even as you left the address carrying the PAK’nSAVE bag containing nearly 2.3 kgs of methamphetamine, the manufacturing at the address carried on with a further 30 ounces being produced. But that was after you had left.

[33] You took the bag and its contents back to your home, put it in another bag and placed it next to you in the back of the Mercedes.

[34] Unbeknownst to you the Police knew exactly what you were up to. They knew you were couriering a finished product and they needed to intercept you not only to prevent the drug’s distribution into our community but also to prove the drug was what they knew it would be.

[35] I agree with your counsel, Ms Pecotic, that the specific acts which are relied on for this charge are properly captured in the other charges I have already discussed.

[36] In your interview with the Police you made some admissions about assisting your father and doing what he told you. However, I do not accept that when you went inside the address you just lay down or went to sleep or you just waited. You knew exactly what was going on and you knew who was involved. You participated in an active way knowing that your participation assisted the Group in achieving its object. The jury’s verdicts reflect that.

[37] It is well settled that in cases involving the sort of drug dealing engaged in your case, the most important purposes of sentencing are to hold the defendant accountable, denounce their conduct and deter them and others from engaging in similar behaviour. These purposes become all the more important when the drug

concerned is methamphetamine. Very few in our community would not be aware of the dreadful effects which this horrendous substance wroughts. It is powerfully and devastatingly addictive. Those unfortunate enough to be dependent are invariably physically and psychologically damaged, usually permanently. But the misery does not end there. Friends and family are drawn into the vortex of its destructive force. Crimes, often extremely violent, are committed in the service of the addict’s habits. It is no exaggeration to state that the effects of the scourge of this drug are felt within every corner of our community. And you, through your actions, have contributed to that trail of misery.

[38] The relevant principles of sentencing require me to take into account the gravity and seriousness of the offending and maintain consistency with appropriate sentencing levels. Having said that, I must also impose the least restrictive outcome appropriate to assist you in your rehabilitation particularly having regard to your age.

[39] In sentencing you today I adopt the standard approach which Judges in this country follow. First, I must set a starting point for the offending by reference to the facts and comparable case law. I may then adjust the starting point by reference to the mitigating or aggravating features which are personal to you. And then I must stand back and ask myself whether the resulting sentence is one which properly reflects the totality of your offending.

[40] Both the Crown and Ms Pecotic agree that the lead offences for today’s exercise are the two charges of manufacturing methamphetamine. This is because manufacturing was the primary object of the Group’s activities and because manufacturing is assessed to be the highest form of criminality for those who deal in methamphetamine.

[41] So what I shall do is settle a starting point on the manufacturing charges which I shall adjust to reflect the remaining charges although I should say I see all charges as being closely connected.

[42] The guideline judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v Fatu is obviously where I must commence.¹That judgment sets out four sentencing bands which are largely defined according to the quantity of the drug involved. Band 4 applies to the most serious offending where very large commercial quantities of methamphetamine are produced. Very large commercial quantities are defined as being 500 grams or more. Cases which fall within Band 4 attract starting points of between 13 years and

[43] There can be no dispute that your offending falls comfortably within Band 4. The two manufacturing phases in which you participated yielded some 4700 grams of methamphetamine. The product of either of those phases, taken alone, would have your offending fit easily within Band 4. The question for me is where within that band do you fit?

[44] The Crown and Ms Pecotic have referred me to a number of cases to assist me in setting a starting point. I do not propose to go through those cases and discuss them in detail, but I shall footnote them in my written notes for ease of reference for others.²While these cases are helpful in a general sense and I record my gratitude to the parties for providing them, I consider their usefulness is limited for two reasons. The first is that all manufacturing operations will, by necessity, involve different

circumstances with vastly different roles being performed by the various participants. So comparing roles between cases can be a fraught and unrewarding exercise. The second is that the amount of methamphetamine which the Group manufactured far exceeds the amounts in any of the cases that counsel have referred me to.

[45] And so a more useful and practical exercise is to compare your role with those of your co-offenders and from that identify where in the spectrum of

_{culpability your offending fits. What I shall do is discuss the cases
and levels of}

culpability of the co-offenders who, in my view, fit above and below you in that hierarchy.

[46] Elijah Rogers was one of the principal cooks. He was present during most of the manufacturing phases but he also took part in the distribution of the drug by acting as “a gatekeeper” to whom other members of the Group turned in order to obtain drugs to sell. In sentencing Mr Rogers I adopted a starting point of 25 years’ imprisonment.³

[47] Jaydean Hura was another principal cook. Lang J concluded that he and Mr Rogers sat at a comparable level in the manufacturing hierarchy as cooks. However, his Honour concluded that Jaydean Hura was also involved in the distribution of the drug. And based on that difference Lang J adopted a slightly

[48] Anthony Mangu participated in three of the six manufactures. In two he served as something of an assistant. However, in the last manufacture, he was undoubtedly one of the main cooks. He communicated directly with your father throughout that manufacture. However, as with Jaydean Hura, Anthony Mangu played a more limited role in the distribution of the drug and for that reason I

[49] Another of the principal cooks was Mark Lang. He was a qualified engineer who lived next door and it was through that association he ended up being drawn into the manufacturing. He provided assistance by fabricating and maintaining the equipment used in the manufacturing process. He was one of the main cooks in the fourth and sixth phases. In his case I adopted a starting point of 19 years’

[50] Then there is Sharn Keogh. Sharn Keogh was, by and large, a delivery driver

_{for the Group’s activities. His involvement in the three
manufactures was more}

tangential, driving the cooks to and from the address and delivering ice and other supplies as and when they were needed. In recognition of that more limited role I adopted a starting point of 11 years despite Sharn Keogh’s involvement in three manufacturing phases.⁷

[51] That spectrum provides something of a useful measure for where you fit in. You were only 17 years old at the time and I accept your role was more limited than the principal cooks. Your provision of assistance came in the form of being a delivery driver and a general supporter of the operation in a variety of other ways which I have already discussed and which I will detail in a minute. You delivered quantities of pseudoephedrine from Auckland to Whangarei so the Group could convert that pre-cursor substance into methamphetamine. The quantities you delivered were very substantial and intimately connected with the manufacturing phases.

[52] Initially your involvement was more peripheral but as the Group’s activities evolved so did your participation increase. You delivered materials and equipment. You drove the primary cooks to and from the address. You were closely involved in the fifth and sixth phases and I am satisfied that in relation to the sixth phase you played an active role as a principal manufacturer as that expression was used in the course of the trial.

[53] From 4 November 2014, given your father’s incapacity, your involvement increased even more. You watched and helped the cooks. You conveyed instructions from your father. For example, on one occasion, you asked Elijah Rogers to check with Mark Lang whether he had finished what your father had asked him to make. Your involvement only ended on the afternoon of 14 November 2014 when the Police pulled you over on the northern motorway. It is noteworthy the level of trust your father reposed in you, particularly that last delivery of nearly 2.3 kgs of methamphetamine; a quantity of drugs worth millions of dollars.

[54] The Crown says that taking into account all these factors a starting point of between 19 years and five months’ imprisonment and 20 years and five months’

imprisonment is called for on the manufacturing charges alone. While accepting you were not as culpable as the primary cooks, the Crown submits you were a fundamentally important cog and that for the fifth and sixth phases you were effectively a “supervisor” making sure other members of the Group were performing their duties as instructed. For this reason, the Crown submits you sit above Mark Lang in the hierarchy and in terms of culpability. The other point the Crown makes is that unlike the other cooks who seemed to have been paid in kind, you were paid in money.

[55] The Crown submits the pseudoephedrine charges and the possession of methamphetamine for supply should attract an uplift in the range of five to six years. Keeping totality considerations in mind, the Crown submits the starting point for all of your offending should be between 24 and a half and 25 and a half years’ imprisonment.

[56] Ms Pecotic, conversely, submits that a starting point of the order of nine years’ imprisonment would be appropriate. She submits any uplift to account for the possession of methamphetamine for supply and the two comparable pseudoephedrine charges should not be reflected in an uplift. She submits that to do so would be duplicitous because your role was akin to that of a “dog’s body” rather than a leading figure or central protagonist. She submits the operation could easily have continued without your services.

[57] I have carefully read and listened to the excellent submissions made by both counsel. I do not view your culpability as sitting at the level the Crown presses for. There can be no doubt that you were a willing participant. You were an active and able servant to the organisation in the ways I have described. I also accept that as the operation evolved in size and sophistication so too did your role. But I do not accept you were a “supervisor” as that term is used by the Crown. It is not a descriptor which fits comfortably with my assessment of your culpability.

[58] Your role in the latter stages, particularly in the last phase when your father was serving a sentence of home detention, was to be his eyes and ears. Because he was unable to travel to the address and oversee the events there you helped as a

conduit. That the other cooks plainly recognised this was your role is reflected in Jaydean Hura’s comments made during the sixth manufacture. Jaydean Hura, referring to your father, said, “Oh, he knows it’s safe. If anything went wrong Evanda will ring him straight away.” This statement was followed by laughter. While this was a flippant remark, probably made in your presence, it is one which, in my view, reinforces that others inside the operation viewed your role as the “eyes and ears” of your father.

[59] There is also the comment in this phase by Brownie Harding to the cooks instructing them to give the product to Evanda and this, too, elevates your involvement beyond being a mere dog’s body for your father.

[60] Any authority you possessed came via your father. He trusted you. Any authority you had was not derived from a recognition on the part of your co- defendants that you possessed any particular skill or expertise. In fact, I agree with Ms Pecotic that you brought relatively little to the operation other than your ready willingness to support it.

[61] Taking all those considerations into account I am of the view that your culpability sits somewhere between Mark Lang and Sharn Keogh. The former provided expertise to the operation and was actively involved in two phases of manufacture. Sharn Keogh, although involved in more manufacturing phases than you provided his services largely in the context of a delivery driver.

[62] Mark Lang’s starting point was 19 years’ imprisonment. Sharn Keogh’s was

11 years’ imprisonment. I consider the appropriate starting point for you on the manufacturing charges is 13 years’ imprisonment. I do not attach any great weight to the fact that you were paid in money rather than in kind. You appear to have received a car from your father as well as a modest amount of cash. I recall one conversation involving you and your mother in which she expressed concerns that you were not being adequately rewarded. Certainly you were not the recipient of large quantities of cash.

[63] I am of the view that an uplift is appropriate to reflect the remaining three charges of possession of pseudoephedrine and methamphetamine for the purposes of supply. While I accept the Crown’s submission that these charges would ordinarily attract significant starting points if taken in isolation, I agree with Ms Pecotic that they are very closely connected to the lead charges. On all three occasions you were either delivering pre-cursor substances to be used in the manufacturing process or you were assisting as a courier to take the end product to the market in Auckland. To a considerable extent the acts which underlie those charges were simply part of your involvement in supporting the manufacturing process. I impose an uplift of two years on that basis. For the same reason I do not consider any uplift is necessary to reflect the charge of participating in an organised criminal group.

[65] I now turn to your personal circumstances. When Operation Easter commenced you had only just turned 17. You are now 18. You have one relatively minor driving conviction which has no bearing on what I must do today.

[66] The pre-sentence report reveals that you spent most of your life in Whangarei with your parents and your six siblings. You left high school at the age of 15. You have not received any form of training, education or employment since. Unsurprisingly, the Headhunters have played a major role in your life with much of your family circle being active members or associates. You recognise you will face some difficulty in removing these negative influences from your life but you appear willing to try. To your credit you indicated to the author of the report that you intend to use your time in prison to undertake work training programmes as well as any available courses which might address the origins and causes of your offending. All I can do is agree and earnestly hope that at your age you appreciate how important these rehabilitative programmes will be. You have a real opportunity to use this time to prepare yourself for life when you return to the community.

[67] You told the author of the report that you did not initially understand the seriousness of what you were involved in. That realisation you said did not dawn

until later. You now express some regret. You say that you wish you “hadn’t done it”. I accept that initially, at least, you may not have properly appreciated how deep or serious this business you got embroiled in was. You were young and I accept that at least to some extent, you were naïve. Unsurprisingly, you now have some insight.

[68] Based on your remorse I am prepared to offer you a discount of five per cent on your end sentence. I do not consider that I can go further because the Courts have repeatedly and consistently emphasised that personal circumstances carry little weight in cases involving commercial drug dealing.⁸

[69] I am prepared to give you a further substantial discount on account of your age. Traditionally, the Courts have identified five reasons which would justify reduced sentences where offenders are young. The first is that the offending may be an act of immature or youthful indiscretion. Secondly, young people are more vulnerable and susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures. Thirdly, young offenders tend to have greater difficulty regulating their behaviour and impulses. Fourthly, they may not appreciate the full gravity of the offence despite knowing it is wrong and, finally, young people have a greater capacity and potential for rehabilitation. A sentence of imprisonment may have a harsher effect on an

[70] Discounts for youth can vary widely. They can have a radical effect or an inconsequential effect on the final outcome depending on the nature of the offence and the role of the offender.

[71] Although young, I am satisfied you were not incapable of thinking for yourself. You chose to become involved and once you had a proper appreciation of what you were doing, you chose to stay involved. So although I accept there was some level of naivety, this was not an act of immaturity or youthful indiscretion.

_{Otherwise, all the other factors which I mentioned I am satisfied apply
in your case.}

[72] In particular, I consider that your father’s influence had a dominating effect in relation to your offending. Mr Annandale points out your older brother, Tyson, managed to resist these influences and yet you yielded reinforcing the Crown’s submission that you were a willing and able participant who went into this whole business with your eyes open. There is some force in that submission. But having seen and heard the evidence there is no doubt whatsoever that his overbearing personality, his threats, his aggression and other attributes including his status within the Headhunter diaspora, made him a dominant and coercive influence within your family and in your life particularly. You were young, vulnerable and loyal. You became involved in this dreadful business because of the influence of your father. I am certain of that. That view is supported by the comments of Luke Aekins, in his letter to me of 29 August 2016. I will have more to say about that at the end of these remarks.

[73] However, at your age, I do not consider you to be a lost cause. There are some comments in the pre-sentence report which suggest to me that you do have some insight into the gravity of what you have done and the potential that lies ahead for you to improve yourself. The years ahead will be difficult for you but you do seem to demonstrate a level of insight which leaves me some level of comfort that you may not waste your time in jail. I have no wish to discourage those positive attributes by imposing a sentence which crushes any hope or ambition for the future. For that reason I am prepared to discount the starting point by a substantial 30 per cent.

[74] Also included in that discount is some recognition of the time you spent on restricted EM-bail but of course any discount must be limited by the fact that you cut off your monitoring device in March this year and for about two months you were at large before you gave yourself up and since then you have been in custody. I accept there were some mental health issues around your decision to abscond but any credit must be limited in the wider context of the factors I take into account.

[75] Finally, there is the question of your guilty pleas. You pleaded guilty on the first day of the trial. But in doing so you did not materially shorten the length of the trial. The evidence in support of the charges was still largely required to be adduced.

The evidence against you was overwhelming and conviction on those charges was in my view inevitable. For that reason I cannot offer you a discount of any more than five per cent on this basis.

[77] Ordinarily a defendant who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two years would be eligible to apply for parole after they have served one third. However, s 86 of the Sentencing Act 2002 gives the Court the power to order a defendant to serve a longer minimum period of imprisonment where the grant of parole after the normal period would not be adequate to address the sentencing principles of deterrence, denunciation and accountability. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that in cases of very serious drug dealing it is almost inevitable that the

[78] Minimum periods of 50 per cent were imposed in respect of Elijah Rogers, Anthony Mangu, Jaydean Hura and Mark Lang. In your case, however, I am not convinced it is appropriate, having regard to the principles in s 86, to impose a minimum period of imprisonment. Given your age and where I have determined your offending fits, I do not consider your sentence would be seen as inadequate in the eyes of the public or that the relative purposes of sentencing would not be given proper recognition. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that age may be taken into account in determining whether or not to impose a minimum period of

[79] Mr Harding please stand. The sentences which I am about to formally impose are to be served concurrently. That means your term of imprisonment will

[80] On the two charges of manufacturing methamphetamine I sentence you to nine years and six months’ imprisonment.

$1,110 found in your wallet and the $1,845 seized from your room be forfeited. I am satisfied this money was received by you in the course of or consequent upon the present offending.

[85] Mr Harding, at the age of 18 the prospect of spending the next few years in prison will be a daunting one for you. As I said the pre-sentence report allows some optimism for the future. You seem to have some insight and realisation that what you will make of your life rests in your own hands. Another positive factor which allows me some optimism that you are not beyond salvation is the very supportive letter from Luke Aekins who had dealings with you since you were at intermediate school. He describes you as loyal, hardworking and talented. Plainly you thrived under his care and attention. You joined his Leadership Academy of A Company and you flourished. But it all turned to mud when your father was released from prison and you fell under his toxic influence. Luke Aekins says that once that happened you never stood a chance. If you view the next few years in prison as an opportunity to acquire some skills and undertake some training then the years ahead will not have been entirely wasted. I sincerely hope that you do what you told the probation officer you intended to do and you come out the other end of this sad business better equipped to resist re-offending and possessed of some skills which will allow you to contribute to our community in a positive way. In doing that you will need some help and it is reassuring and positive that sitting in the back of this Courtroom is

such a large number of people who are here to support you. Show them that you can do it.

Hearing:	1 September 2016
Appearances:	Richard Annandale for the Crown Maria Pecotic for the Defendant
_Judgment:	_{1 September 2016}

High Court of New Zealand Decisions

R v Harding [2016] NZHC 2069 (1 September 2016)