EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AT WHAKATANE
CRI-2016-087-001828
CRI-2016-087-000529
[2016] NZDC 25017
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Prosecutors
v
AARON DUDLEY WRIGHT
Defendant
Hearing:
8 December 2016
Appearances:
Sergeant W Scott for the Prosecutor New Zealand Police
A Tuari-Hapi for the Prosecutor Department of Corrections
C Andersen for the Defendant
Judgment:
8 December 2016
NOTES OF JUDGE P G MABEY QC ON SENTENCING
[1]
Mr Aaron Dudley Wright, you are back before the Court today and have
accepted a sentence indication I gave yesterday. There were two matters before the
Court yesterday, 7 December, which required an indication.
[2]
The first was an application to cancel and substitute a sentence of home
detention, post-detention and community work. Judge Bidois on 6 July imposed a
sentence of 12 months’ home detention and 400 hours’ community work on a
sentence of burglary.
NEW ZEALAND POLICE v AARON DUDLEY WRIGHT [2016] NZDC 25017 [8 December 2016]
[3]
It is evident from his sentence of home detention that the Judge arrived at a
two year end point on the burglary charge which justifies a 12 month term of home
detention. Part of the Judge’s consideration in reaching the two year end point
would have been the ability for him to impose the maximum term of community
work as a cumulative element, which is what he did.
[4]
He also ordered reparation of $5509.63. I am satisfied that the application to
cancel and substitute a sentence of home detention, post-detention and community
work is appropriate. I need however to take account of the fact that Mr Wright has
completed about 150 hours of his community work.
[5]
I need also to note that at the time the Judge sentenced on the burglary, you
received a sentence of 288 hours’ community work concurrent for a breach of home
detention conditions and possession of cannabis plant.
[6]
I intend to deal with those charges on the basis that your community work
already completed satisfied the sentence for those charges. That then leaves me with
the need to re-sentence on the burglary alone.
[7]
Whilst on home detention, Mr Wright had been selling cannabis and has
admitted to the sale of about three pounds of cannabis over a six month period. He
has also been charged with receiving items. Often, stolen property is found in the
hands of drug dealers as currency used to pay for drugs. That is not the situation
here, the receiving is independent.
[8]
On the charge of burglary dealt with by Judge Bidois, the summary of facts
shows a sophisticated burglary by Mr Wright and another person who were both
security guards. That was a gross breach of trust justifying the Judge’s approach on
a first charge of burglary.
[9]
The cannabis charge is well within band 2 of R v Terewi 1 and I indicated a
start point of two years and nine months for that charge. The receiving was discrete
and was committed whilst on home detention and justifies an uplift. I increase the
start point by three months to three years.
[10]
On the burglary charge and allowing for the fact that four months of home
detention has already been completed, I consider that a substituted sentence of
one year and three months is appropriate.
[11]
The sentence for receiving and cannabis must of course be cumulative. The
totality principle applies. Giving you credit for your guilty pleas I impose a sentence
of two years’ cumulative upon the sentence of one year and three months for the
burglary.
[12]
On the charge of burglary being charge CRN 0715, your existing sentences
are cancelled and you are sentenced to one year and three months’ imprisonment. I
note that the cancellation of your existing sentences also applies to the community
work imposed for breach of home detention conditions and possession of cannabis
plant.
[13]
On the charge of selling cannabis you are sentenced to two years’
imprisonment and on the charges of receiving you are sentenced on each to
three months’ imprisonment but that is concurrent.
[14]
That is a total of three years and three months’ imprisonment.
[15]
Judge Bidois imposed a reparation order that remains. When you were
searched and the cannabis was found, $700 was taken from you. I am satisfied that
sum should be forfeit under the provisions of s 32 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
1
R v Terewi [1999] 3 NZLR 62 (CA)
[16]
Mr Wright, three years and three months, the reparation remains and the $700
is gone. As Ms Andersen pointed out, your release will be entirely up to the
Parole Board.
P G Mabey QC
District Court Judge