R v Wildman [2016] NZHC 2462 (17 October 2016)

Last Updated: 8 November 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-085-006779 [2016] NZHC 2462

THE QUEEN

v

_{ROBERT DANIEL CHARLES WILDMAN}

Counsel:	P K Feltham for Crown C J Tennet for Defendant
Sentence:	17 October 2016

_{NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J}

Introduction

[1] Mr Wildman, you are to be sentenced today, having pleaded guilty to the following two charges:

(1) One charge of supplying methamphetamine.¹

(2) One charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.²

[2] You pleaded guilty to these charges after I gave you a sentence indication on

16 August 2016. That indication was a sentence of four years and eight months’

_{imprisonment.}

¹ _{Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c). Maximum sentence is life imprisonment.}

² _{Section 6(1)(f). Maximum sentence is life imprisonment.}

R v WILDMAN [2016] NZHC 2462 [17 October 2016]

[3] This morning I shall:

(1) summarise your offending;

(2) explain the starting point I have adopted;

(3) explain the adjustments I will make to the starting point; and

(4) explain the sentence which I will impose.

Your offending

[4] Since early 2013, the investigation “Operation Fantail” targeted a large scale methamphetamine supply network. You are one of the defendants who played a role in this network.

Possession of methamphetamine for supply

[5] The charges against you concern an incident that occurred between 19 May

2014 and 21 May 2014. You made arrangements via an unknown person to supply Mr McKinley and Mr Beazley with 142 grams of methamphetamine. You communicated with the Auckland based associate via text messages and phone calls. You agreed to pay $65,000 for the methamphetamine. You recruited Ms Tate as the courier to deliver the drugs to Mr Beazley and to collect the payment from Mr Beazley and return to Auckland. She was to be paid $1,000 for this task.

Supplying methamphetamine

[6] You obtained the methamphetamine, which was contained in a number of plastic bags. You and Ms Tate wrapped the bags in paper towels and secreted them in aerosol cans that had been converted for the purposes of transporting the drugs. You put the cans in the boot of your car to make them look like normal items. You gave Ms Tate a piece of paper with the name of the purchaser “Kaylib” (Mr Beazley’s first name), his phone number and the amount of $65,000 written on it.

[7] You instructed Ms Tate to book a motel in Paraparaumu and contact Mr Beazley at 8.00 am on 21 May 2014. You told her to collect and count the money that Mr Beazley was to pay for the drugs before handing them over.

[8] Ms Tate then drove your car from Auckland to Paraparaumu with her flatmate. At about 7.50 am she contacted Mr Beazley to meet at the motel. By the time Mr Beazley and Mr McKinley arrived in Paraparaumu, the police were searching the vehicle and motel room being used by the two women. Mr Beazley and Mr McKinley fled back to Wellington. Police located 142 grams of methamphetamine and the note which I have previously referred to.

Personal circumstances

[9] You are 37 years old and currently unemployed. You have two daughters. You have previously appeared before the court on a number of occasions and have nine convictions for offending involving methamphetamine.

Starting point

[10] The tariff judgment for methamphetamine offending is R v Fatu.³ Your offending sits within band two of R v Fatu, where the quantity of the methamphetamine is between five grams and 250 grams and the starting point is generally between three and nine years’ imprisonment.⁴

[11] Your offending has the following aggravating features:

(1) Planning and premeditation:⁵ the planning involved communicating with Mr Beazley and an unknown person to source the methamphetamine and with Ms Tate to arrange the delivery. The planning occurred over the course of two days and involved a number

_{of steps.}

³ _{R v Fatu [2005] NZCA 278; [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA).}

⁴ _{At [34].}

⁵ Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(1)(i).

(2) Quantity, value and frequency:⁶ the package of methamphetamine was 142 grams with a purchase price recorded as being $65,000. This was however a one-off incident.

[12] I have taken into account the role you played in the incident as this is a relevant factor. Those who are primary offenders can expect starting point sentences towards the higher end of the relevant band with the converse applying to those whose role is less significant.⁷

[13] The Crown says your culpability is higher than Ms Tate’s as you facilitated the supply of the methamphetamine, utilising her as a courier to complete the delivery. Your counsel, Mr Tennet, submits that your role was that of a “facilitator” and that you should be treated similarly to Ms Tate.

[14] I have concluded that your level of culpability is higher than Ms Tate’s due to your direct involvement with the methamphetamine deal. I consider a starting point of five years and six months’ imprisonment is appropriate.

Adjustments to starting point

Uplift

[15] You have a number of relevant previous convictions for drug offences. An uplift of six months is appropriate to reflect your previous serious offending. Secondly, this offending occurred when you were serving a sentence of home detention. This is an aggravating feature which warrants a further uplift of three months’ imprisonment.

Personal mitigating factors

_{[16] I now turn to personal factors which are mitigating for you.}

⁶ _{R v Fatu, above n 3.}

⁷ At [31].

Time spent on restrictive bail

[17] You were held in custody from 10 June 2014 for almost 12 months. You have been on electronically monitored (EM) bail since 26 May 2015. Your compliance with restrictive bail terms can provide a basis for a reduction in sentence.⁸ A discount of seven months is currently appropriate to reflect the terms and time on restrictive bail conditions.

Rehabilitation

[18] I have now had the benefit of a comprehensive report from Dr Lokesh, a forensic psychiatrist. He reports that your prospects of reoffending in the short term are low, and that long term, your risk of reoffending is low to moderate.

[19] Mr Tennet has on your behalf submitted that I should take into account that your offending has been caused by your personal use of methamphetamine. In addition to Dr Lokesh’s report I have been referred to two reports from a drug- treatment clinic which indicates that you have previously undertaken a five week intensive treatment programme for amphetamine dependence. That was in 2013. The report-writer says you demonstrated insight into the negative effects of your drug use. In your letter to me you say you have completed a 12 month aftercare programme.

[20] Dr Lokesh’s report provides useful insight into the likely causes of your

offending. He is guardedly optimistic about your prospects of rehabilitation.

[21] You have indicated a desire to attend drug-related courses as part of further rehabilitation. I have decided to take into account the matters raised by Dr Lokesh and provide you with a further discount of three months’ imprisonment to reflect the

_{contents of his report.}

⁸ Keown v R [2010] NZCA 492 at [7].

Remorse

[22] In my sentence indication I said that should you demonstrate genuine remorse for your offending, then you would be entitled to an additional discrete discount to reflect that remorse.⁹ There are expressions of remorse in the pre-sentence report. I have also read your letter to me, which demonstrates some insight into the impact of your offending on your two daughters and in generally to the community. I am willing to give an additional discount of three months for this expression of what I consider to be genuine remorse.

Guilty plea

[23] You are entitled to a credit for your guilty plea.¹⁰ I will give you a discount which is close to 20 per cent.¹¹

Conclusion

[24] Mr Wildman, on the charge of supplying methamphetamine, I am sentencing you to four years and two months’ imprisonment.

[25] On the charge of possessing methamphetamine for the purposes of supply, I

am sentencing you to four years’ imprisonment. That is a concurrent sentence.

_{[26] Stand down.}

_{D B Collins J}

⁹ _{Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 at [64].}

¹⁰ _{Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(2)(b).}

¹¹ Hessell v R, above n 9. Charges were laid on 22 May 2014.