IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-085-2491 [2015] NZHC 1806

THE QUEEN

v

KEVIN KAKADA CHEA KIEN TRUNG DAO ABBY RAE CUMMINS
MICHAEL EDWIN DEBRECENY

Hearing:	31 July 2015	

Counsel:	
P K Feltham for Crown
A F Rickard-Simms for Chea
C J Tennet for Dao
K I Jefferies for Cummins and Debreceny	

Sentence:	
31 July 2015	

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOBSON J

[1]       I have now to sentence each of you on the convictions for your respective roles in importing, supplying and having possession of methamphetamine for supply. My task is to rate the seriousness of the offending by each of you.   I do so in accordance with the view I take of the nature of that offending, which must be consistent with the jury’s verdicts.  I have carefully reflected on my impression of all the evidence, bearing in mind that the jury did not find some of the charges that you faced had been proven by the Crown.

[2]       The activities were mostly centred on an apartment in Chews Lane in central Wellington, where you, Messrs Chea and Dao and Ms Cummins, were living.  The offending was revealed when the Police conducted a search at the premises in the
very early hours of 7 March 2014.  The Police discovered a cooking operation in the

R v CHEA, DAO, CUMMINS AND DEBRECENY [2015] NZHC 1806 [31 July 2015]

open plan kitchen area of the apartment that they initially took to be methamphetamine being manufactured.  On further consideration, it turned out to be a  reprocessing  operation   to   reconstitute  methamphetamine,   which   had   been suspended in some inert substance such as plaster to disguise its presence when blocks of the substance were imported.  The blocks had been coloured green and, for import purposes, were described as jade.

[3]       The evidence,  I am satisfied, established that  Messrs Chea and Dao had contacts in Vietnam and in Canada, and I accept the Crown case that the blocks imported originated in Vietnam, were sent first to Canada, and from there to unoccupied addresses in Wellington.  Payments for the disguised methamphetamine were made to bank accounts in Vietnam.   The transactions were mostly made by Mr Dao, and by a woman who was apparently not otherwise involved, but was requested to undertake money transfers on behalf of Mr Chea.

[4]       In the one importation for which you, Mr Debreceny, were convicted, you facilitated delivery of the package via a courier driver who you knew independently of these activities.  Your physical involvement with the package might be seen as minor.  However, the text traffic between you and Messrs Chea and Dao, and text message references to your involvement with those in Vietnam, establish a knowing involvement in facilitating receipt and delivery of that package to Messrs Chea and Dao, knowing of the nature of the contents and what they would be doing with it.

[5]       Ms Cummins, you were living at the apartment as Mr Chea’s girlfriend.  I am satisfied that you were fully aware of the reprocessing and selling operation that was going on from the address.  You were a willing participant in the lifestyle that came with the significant flow of cash and easy access to methamphetamine.

[6]       This  trial  did  not  expose  the  jury to  the  misery caused  in  New Zealand society by addiction to methamphetamine and its use.  Sadly, New Zealand judges are exposed all too frequently to the huge harm that methamphetamine causes for those who use it, and those affected by the dangerous and irrational behaviour of users, and in particular the children affected by such situations.  The seriousness of offending involving methamphetamine is reflected for you today in that convictions

for importing methamphetamine, for supplying it and for possession for supply carry maximum penalties of life imprisonment.  Throughout your offending, you may have thought that it was no big deal and turned a blind eye to the harm that methamphetamine causes.  Well, sentencing is a day of reckoning in that I have to apply sentencing guidelines that reflect the very serious level of harm that this drug causes.

[7]       Because  there  are  quite  a  number  of  considerations  to  explain,  it  is appropriate that I indicate at the outset what my decision is on the ultimate sentence for each of you.

[8]       Mr Chea, in your case I will be sentencing you to 17 years’ imprisonment. Mr Dao, it will be 15 years’ imprisonment in your case and Mr Debreceny it will be nine and a half years in your case.  Ms Cummins, you will be sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment.

[9]       I turn now to an explanation of the factors that have led me to the decisions in these sentences.

The amounts

[10]     Firstly  dealing  with  the  amounts.    You  have  heard  my  discussions  this afternoon with counsel as to the amounts of methamphetamine attributable to the convictions for each of you.  I am satisfied that the amounts of methamphetamine in each of the imported consignments in October 2013 and February 2014 was not less than one kilogram.  Given the complete absence of any texts or other evidence of sourcing methamphetamine from anywhere else, I am satisfied that the total amount of methamphetamine found in various places at the time of the Police search was sourced  from  the  package  imported  in  February  2014.    That  would  put  the recoverable weight of methamphetamine at more than 1.1 kilograms.

[11]     I also accept that the methamphetamine located at the time of the search would not have been stored since the importation some five months earlier.  I accept the   Crown   point   that   both   Messrs   Chea   and   Dao   denied   having   any

methamphetamine in January 2014, in response to text message requests from people with whom you did deal in methamphetamine at other times.

[12]     I  am  mindful  that  the  import  documents  for  the  October  consignment suggested that it weighed some two kilograms heavier than the February 2014 one, but that is not a basis for inferring it contained more methamphetamine.  Rather, the pattern of text communications arranging for the two imports appears consistent, and there is no suggestion that the February consignment would be any smaller than that undertaken  in  October.    It  has  the  hallmarks  of  an  operation  that  would  be undertaken consistently, in terms of the work required to suspend the methamphetamine in an inert substance and dispatch it.

[13]     Defence counsel have repeated this afternoon arguments that it is speculative to fix the amounts and that I cannot be satisfied on the purity of the amounts of methamphetamine.  I am satisfied there was pattern here, and the kilogram in the car was of merchantable quality and is a sufficient basis for a finding on both.

[14]     For sentencing purposes on both importing convictions, I accordingly treat the quantity involved as being not less than one kilogram of methamphetamine.

[15]     As to the quantities attributed to Messrs Chea and Dao and Ms Cummins for your convictions on possession for supply, I am satisfied that Mr Chea, you were the boss, so you were able to exert control over the whole amount, irrespective of where it was found.  You have denied possession of the largest quantity found in the rear footwell of the Renault car in the basement.  Mr Rickard-Simms has pointed out that you did not have the keys to that car and that in contrast when your vehicle was searched earlier in the same night, no methamphetamine was found.  That does not dissuade me from the view that you were in overall control, including of items that were in that car.   You had facilitated its purchase for Mr Dao’s use, and Mr Dao acted on your instructions, I find, in all aspects of the operation.

[16]     The only exception for Mr Chea is the 11.6 grams hidden in Ms Cummins’ makeup compact.   Apart from that,  I treat the quantities of nearly 25 grams in various packages in the kitchen, the amounts totalling seven grams at various points

in the living area, and the small remaining amount found in the bedroom you shared with Ms Cummins of 0.28 grams, as being in your possession, making a total weight of 1,170 grams of methamphetamine.

[17]     For you Mr Dao, I do not accept that you were being coerced by Mr Chea, or so subservient to him that you could be treated as not having possession of the largest amount of methamphetamine in the car.  You were so heavily involved in all aspects   that   you   are   also   to   be   treated   as   being   in   possession   of   the methamphetamine in the common areas, namely in the kitchen and the lounge.  That means that you had possession of nearly as much methamphetamine as Mr Chea except  for  the  small  amounts  found  in  the  bedroom  shared  by  Mr Chea  and Ms Cummins.  The total amount of methamphetamine in your possession, Mr Dao, I fix at 1,169 grams.

[18]     Ms Cummins, as  to  the amounts  to  be attributed  to  you,  the Crown  has mounted a credible argument that, in addition to the 11.6 grams in your makeup compact, and the other small amount of 0.28 grams found in the bedroom you shared with Mr Chea, you were, as a flatmate, also in possession of the amounts in the lounge and the kitchen at the apartment.  I am satisfied that you were a willing, and probably also an enthusiastic, participant in what was going on there, but I am left with a residual doubt that your relationship with the others went so far as to attribute you with possession of the amounts outside your bedroom.   Because there is a prospect that you did not participate in the reprocessing, and possibly also not in the packaging and any cutting that occurred, I consider a distinction is to be drawn between the quantities that had made their way into your bedroom, and those which were in the common areas.  Without the benefit of decisions by the jury on charges against you that were framed in more particular terms as to the methamphetamine found in different locations in the apartment, you are entitled to the benefit of the doubt that I have given you.

[19]     I will therefore be sentencing you on the basis that you were in possession of some 11.8 grams, in a context where you were also able to assist in a processing and resale operation involving significantly larger amounts.

Approach on sentencing

[20]     Now my sentencing analysis has to be guided by the purposes set out in s 7, and the principles in s 8, of the Sentencing Act 2002.   As is usually the case in serious drug offending, relevant purposes for my assessment here are that I have to hold each of you accountable for your contributions to the harm done to the community by your offending, I seek to promote in each of you a sense of responsibility for the harm that you have caused, and an acknowledgement of it.  I need to denounce conduct of the type that you are involved in.  I need to deter you and others from committing the same or similar offences by the length of sentences imposed.  But finally, I have also to be mindful of the need for your rehabilitation,
and your reintegration into the community.1

[21]     When I focus on the principles for sentencing, I take into account the gravity of this offending and the degree of culpability I attribute to each of you, the seriousness of these offences by comparison with others coming before the courts, and the relationship they bear to the maximum penalties that are provided.  Another principle is the desirability for consistency so that the same offending should attract the same starting point before taking into account individual circumstances. Again, I have to be satisfied that the ultimate outcome is the least restrictive that I can impose in all the circumstances.

Starting points

[22]     Coming to the starting points.  As you will have heard, the Court of Appeal set guidelines for different levels of methamphetamine offending in R v Fatu.2   Fatu treats importing methamphetamine as somewhat more serious than supply and recognises four bands in terms of amounts for less than five grams, between five and
250 grams, from 250 to 500 grams and 500 grams and more.

[23]     Dealing for a moment with you, Messrs Chea and Dao, you are clearly in that highest band – that is, band four – where the starting points range from 12 years to
life imprisonment.

1	Sentencing Act 2002, s 7(1)(a), (b), (e), (f) and (h).
2	R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA).

[24]     I  have  explained  why  I  am  satisfied  that  the  amount  imported  on  each occasion was no less than one kilogram (1,000 grams) of methamphetamine on each of the two occasions.   Given that is twice the weight at the bottom of band four, relativity requires a starting point some distance up the range between 12 years and life imprisonment.

[25]     In the case of Chen, the Court of Appeal reviewed the sentencing analysis for a man convicted of importing methamphetamine and having it in his possession for the purposes of supply in somewhat similar circumstances, and the appeal Court’s approval of the sequence of sentencing considerations  has been helpful to me.3
There, Mr Chen pleaded guilty to importing and having possession for the purposes

of supply of 997 grams of methamphetamine – just short of a kilogram.  When the monitored delivery of that import led to Mr Chen’s arrest in July 2009, the Police found a further 900 grams in his possession and he pleaded guilty to possession for supply of that quantity.  However earlier, in March 2009, Mr Chen and an associate had been caught in possession of a total of 1,092 grams of methamphetamine.  Two out of the three of these amounts of about a kilogram each were packaged in ounce bags.

[26]     The sentencing Judge in Chen set a starting point of 15 years for the July importation of nearly one kilogram and uplifted that by a further 18 months in respect  of the  further  volume of nearly a second  kilogram  found  in  Mr Chen’s possession at that time.  There was then a second 18 months added on for the earlier conviction for possession of a third kilogram for the purposes of supply.  That is, there was a total starting point there of 18 years.

[27]     The sentencing Judge ranked Mr Chen’s culpability on the basis that he was not a mastermind or organiser or senior manager, but was certainly not near the bottom end of whatever chain of supply was involved for that methamphetamine. The Judge took into account that the methamphetamine was packaged in ounce bags rather than in point bags, drawing the inference that Mr Chen would be selling in
larger than retail amounts for someone else to on-sell in smaller quantities.

3	Chen v R [2010] NZCA 552.

[28]     Now on the evidence at your trial, you were certainly no less in control of the two importations and on-sale than Mr Chen appears to have been.  If anything, the nature of  your contacts  with those arranging the importation from Vietnam and Canada had the two of you more in control of arrangements.   Therefore I would attribute at least equal culpability relative to the amounts involved.  That is before I draw a distinction between Messrs Chea and Dao, which I will do.

[29]     I have reflected on the submissions for both of you to the effect that lower starting points would be appropriate.  For you Mr Chea, Mr Rickard-Simms argued for a starting point of no higher than 13 years and six months, and raises the concern that there should not be double jeopardy by counting quantities for the purposes of establishing importation, and then relying on them as well for the purposes of possession for supply.  I am mindful of that point and it is taken into account in the sequence I will adopt in setting an overall starting point.

[30]     For you Mr Dao, Mr Tennet argued for a 12 and a half year starting point, on the basis that yours was a much less significant role in the importation and that you were to be treated as a lesser party to the possession for supply.

[31]     Mr Chea,  I  set  a  starting  point  for  the  first  conviction  for  importing  in October 2013 at 14 years.  That reflects the amount of not less than one kilogram, and your position being in control, at least in New Zealand, of the whole operation.  I would then add a further two years for the second conviction for importing not less than a second kilogram of methamphetamine in February 2014

[32]    Given the seriousness of those convictions, it is appropriate to treat the conviction for possession for supply of the amount of 1,170 grams in March 2014 not on its own, but as a factor reflecting the seriousness of those other convictions. On the way I have analysed the matter, I am satisfied that the starting point of a total of 16 years is sufficient to reflect your involvement in controlling the importation of two quantities of not less than one kilogram, and being in possession of the out-turn from the second of those importations.   What I will do is set a sentence on the possession for supply conviction at 12 years, but it is to be served concurrently so

that it does not add to the 16 year starting point for both of the importation convictions.

[33]     Mr Dao, your convictions on those same charges attract a somewhat lower starting point because you were not in control.   Mr Tennet objected to the Crown characterising you as Mr Chea’s “lieutenant”, and he would rather have you as an NCO – in case you are unfamiliar with that, it means non commissioned officer. Somebody not at the very bottom but still subject to instructions.  I am satisfied that is appropriate.  You were certainly more than a foot soldier.  I am also satisfied that you were willingly involved in all aspects of the operation and indeed likely had a greater role in the reprocessing and packaging activities in terms of the physical work.  I set the difference between the two of you at 18 months so that the starting point on the two convictions for importing would be 14  years and six months’ imprisonment.  On the same basis, your conviction for possession for supply will be dealt with by a concurrent sentence of 12 years, with no need to reflect that in an uplift on the total sentence.

[34]     You both then face convictions on a representative charge of supply in the period  between  21 October  2013  and  7 March  2014.    I treat  that  conviction  as relating to an amount of not less than half a kilogram, that at least part of the supply was in ounce lots, and that Mr Chea was more involved in the on-selling activity than  Mr Dao.     I  discern  that  level  and  nature  of  supply  activity  from  a reconsideration  of  all  the  text  traffic  and  the  manner  in  which  the  second consignment of reprocessed methamphetamine was packaged when the Police search occurred, and the other bags that were found.  I have allowed for the possibility that the  three  of  you  may  have  consumed  up  to  one  half  of  the  October  2013 consignment, which may be too generous, but I consider it appropriate.

[35]     I do not treat the extent of cash at the apartment as providing a reliable indication of the volume of supply that had occurred over the period, but it was clearly significant, given the amounts of money moving through bank accounts.  If I was sentencing  you on  this conviction  – that is, supply of methamphetamine – standing on its own, I would have to treat it as being at the top of band three or the bottom  of  band  four  from  Fatu,  so  in  a  range  between  nine  and  11  years’

imprisonment.  I think nine years would be sufficient for Mr Chea and eight and a half years for Mr Dao.   However, I am also going to impose the sentence for this conviction to be served concurrently with the lead conviction on importing.  Sorry, I should have clarified.   Concurrently means at the same time.   Do you understand that?  The relevant consideration is therefore the extent to which it justifies an uplift on the starting points I have arrived at for those other convictions.  I reflect this in an uplift to the starting point of one year for Mr Chea, making a total starting point of
17 years.

[36]     For Mr Dao I would add six months, making a total starting point of 15 years to this point.

[37]     Turning then to the sentences required for you two on the convictions for receiving.  There are three for each of you in relation to computers valued at more than $1,000 and one in relation to a computer valued at more than $500.   The distinction between the two value limits is that the maximum penalty where the property involved is worth more than $1,000 would be seven years, but for the lower value property, a maximum of one year’s imprisonment.

[38]     The Crown accepts that although these convictions reflect offending of a different type from the drug convictions, setting concurrent sentences is appropriate because of the connection in time and the factual matrix involved.   I accept the Crown  inference  that  you  received  the  items  knowing  them  to  be  stolen,  but probably in payment for drugs supplied.

[39]     In the circumstances, the three convictions under s 247(a) of the Crimes Act

1961, where the property was valued at over $1,000, would result in concurrent sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment.   On the remaining, lesser, charge under s 247(b) of the Crimes Act, it would be appropriate that you both be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.   Given the length of the sentences for the lead convictions, I do not consider it necessary to uplift the total period to take account of the concurrent sentences on this less serious offending.

[40]     Next,  I consider  the starting point  for  you,  Mr Debreceny,  on  the single importing conviction in your case.  You are to be sentenced on your participation in the import of the October 2013 consignment.  I accept your part was materially less significant than Messrs Chea and Dao, but I am satisfied that you were quite aware that you were involved in importing a significant quantity of methamphetamine and played your part to enable it to be delivered to the others.  Given that the amount was twice the bottom of band four, it is difficult to go below the lowest starting point for that band of 12 years.   I have considered doing so, given the need for relativity between you and the more serious convictions, and because I must sentence you on this being isolated involvement, not part of a pattern as is the case for Messrs Chea and  Dao.    Despite  knowing  what  was  going  on,  I  treat  your  involvement  as somewhat foolish on your part, being oblivious to the consequences, so that your criminality is materially less than would be the case for most offenders playing the role that you did.   I am satisfied that you certainly did not make any significant financial gain, as Mr Jefferies submits, and I accept that this offending occurred while you were otherwise engaged in a legitimate motor repair business.

[41]     Taking those factors into account, I am persuaded that a starting point less than the bottom of band four of Fatu is sufficient to reflect your overall culpability and I set the starting point in your case at nine years and six months’ imprisonment.

[42]     Ms Cummins, addressing the starting point for your conviction for possession of methamphetamine for supply, this will primarily be influenced by the amount of methamphetamine in your possession that I am satisfied was made out at trial.   It was only by a narrow margin that I was not satisfied you were in possession of the amounts  of  methamphetamine  found  in  the  common  areas  of  the  apartment. However, given my analysis, I am not prepared to accept Mr Jefferies’ submission that I should treat half of the amount that was in your possession as being for personal use.  You were living in an apartment that was awash in methamphetamine in  a  range  of  places.    The  amounts  that  were  likely under  your  sole  control  I therefore treat as being for supply.

[43]     Limiting your liability to 11.88 grams places you near the bottom of band two from Fatu.  The Crown submitted that the starting point could not be any lower than

three and a half to four years, and invited a comparison with R v Blackwell where a starting point of three and a half years was adopted for 11 grams.4

[44]     I am satisfied the circumstances are comparable, and I therefore adopt three and a half years as the starting point.

Personal factors or aggravating and mitigating factors

[45]     Next I turn to the personal circumstances of each of you that might affect the starting points I have identified – either factors making it more serious to increase, or matters in your favour that would justify a reduction.

[46]     Mr Chea, you have previous drug dealing convictions.  The Crown concedes that  they  are  relatively  minor  and  it  did  not  seek  more  than  a  modest  uplift. Mr Rickard-Simms submits that an uplift is unnecessary and I agree, mostly because of the lack of relativity and the length of the sentence that is now required to reflect the seriousness of your current offending.  As to your personal circumstances, I have considered the pre-sentence report.  It suggests a weakness for methamphetamine but no particular dependence.  I am troubled by the lack of insight for the misery caused by such offending on a significant scale.

[47]     Mr Rickard-Simms has asked that you be given credit for the period you spent on restricted bail.  That is a matter for the Judge’s discretion and in a case of this type and the circumstances on which you were bailed, I am not prepared to give you a credit for that.

[48]     In  summary,  there are  no  mitigating circumstances  that  would  warrant  a reduction from the starting point.

[49]     Mr Dao, you have been able to complete a commerce degree at Victoria
University and you enjoy the apparent support of your girlfriend and her family, or at least her mother.

4	R v Blackwell [2012] NZHC 2960.

[50]     In your discussions with the pre-sentence report writer, you maintained that you were unaware of any illegal activity being carried out by your co-defendants or yourself.   I cannot accept that and therefore I am wary of relying on conclusions drawn by the report writer that depend on the accuracy of what you told him.

[51]     Mr Tennet has argued that your lack of previous convictions entitles you to an assumption of prior good character, and that a discount should be allowed because of that.   I am not inclined to give a discount for that where there is serious drug offending as revealed here.   And I also have regard to the apparent lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the consequences of it.  He has also asked that you be given credit for a period on restricted bail, and my answer is the same as that in relation to Mr Chea.   Given the nature of the offending, I do not consider that a discount on that factor is appropriate.

[52]     Mr Debreceny, you have previous convictions but not of a nature that makes this present conviction any more serious, so that is not a relevant aggravating factor that would justify any need to increase the starting point.

[53]     In  terms  of  your  personal  circumstances,  you  have  maintained  your innocence in your discussions with the pre-sentence report writer and there is therefore no scope for acknowledging remorse for your offending.  The outcome is that your personal circumstances do not warrant any change from the starting point that I have identified.

[54]     Finally, Ms Cummins I have given careful thought to the pre-sentence report on you which gives a little insight into how you got into this offending.  I discern a personality that is possibly vulnerable to addiction and being easily led.  You have had strong and apparently patient support from your family, which, if you respected, would have kept you away from an environment where offending was likely to occur.

[55]     The report writer notes that you have one prior conviction for assault, and a substantial amount of more than $17,000 owing for outstanding fines, enforcement fees and costs.

[56]     Mr Jefferies has urged me to deal more leniently with you because you have conveyed a commitment to rehabilitation.   That is commendable, and I hope you carry through with it.  Given the overall circumstances of your conviction, I am not prepared to make a discount from the sentencing level that is otherwise appropriate.

[57]     The offending occurred while you were still 20, so you might have been at the upper bracket of offenders whose youth entitled them to some credit on that account.   I am not prepared to do so, given the circumstances of your offending. Given the length of the prison term I will be imposing, any release conditions will be a matter for the Parole Board.

[58]     Accordingly, I am not persuaded that I should vary the final starting point reached for each of you.

[59]     At the end of all of my considerations for each of you, I have stood back and reconsidered  whether  the  sentences  I  propose  are  appropriate  in  terms  of  the purposes  and  principles  for sentencing,  in  reflecting the overall  culpability as  I discern it for each of you, in terms of the relativity between you and ultimately in satisfying myself that the outcome is the least restrictive to achieve all the requirements. As your counsel can explain to you, other judges might well deal with the separate bits of the sentencing analysis differently, but in the end it is the appropriateness of the end sentences that really matter.  I am sorry, but I am satisfied that I have achieved the appropriate sentences for each of you, and in reflecting relativity between you.

[60]     The  final  issue  before  imposing  sentences  is  to  deal  with  the  Crown’s application that I also impose minimum periods of imprisonment on Messrs Chea, Dao and Debreceny.  The point here is that under s 86 of the Sentencing Act, the law recognises that the usual entitlement to parole after serving a third of a substantial sentence may send an inadequate deterrent signal to the community at large.  The Crown asks for a minimum period to be imposed that would require each of you to serve at least 50 per cent of the sentences I am to impose.  There is something of a pattern in serious drug sentencing for that to occur, and the Court of Appeal has

recognised that in very serious drug offending it is almost inevitable that the criteria for s 86 orders will be made out.

[61]     All  of  your  counsel  have  submitted  that  a  minimum  period  order  is unnecessary  and  their  fallback  position  is  that  it  should  not  be  any  more  than
40 per cent,  which  is  sufficient  to  send  the  deterrent  signals  in  a  case  of  this seriousness.

[62]     Yours was indeed very serious drug offending and deterrence is an important consideration.  I am satisfied that minimum periods are appropriate for Messrs Chea and Dao and I will be imposing one in the case of each of you at 50 per cent of the final sentence.

[63]     As to Mr Debreceny, for the reasons explained I see your involvement in a significantly lesser light, and I am not persuaded that a minimum period of imprisonment is required in your case.

[64]     Would you all please stand up.

Mr Chea

[65]     On the convictions for importing methamphetamine in October 2013 and February 2014, you are sentenced to terms of 17 years’ imprisonment.  That reflects also the uplifts for the remaining convictions, because all sentences are to be served on a concurrent basis.  Those concurrent sentences are 12 years on the conviction for possession for supply and nine years’ imprisonment on the representative conviction for supplying methamphetamine between October 2013 and March 2014.

[66]     On the convictions for receiving, you are sentenced to concurrent sentences of one year’s imprisonment on the convictions under s 247(a) of the Crimes Act, and a  concurrent  sentence  of  three  months’  imprisonment  on  the  conviction  under s 247(b).

[67]     I order that, under s 86 of the Sentencing Act, you are to serve a minimum of

50 per cent of the sentence, which is eight and a half years.

Mr Dao

[68]     On  the  convictions  for  importing  methamphetamine  in  October  2013and March 2014, you are sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.  As with Mr Chea, that reflects the uplifts for other sentences that you can serve concurrently.   They are
12 years on the conviction for possession for supply and eight and a half years on the representative conviction for supplying methamphetamine between October 2013 and March 2014.

[69]     On your convictions for receiving, you are sentenced to concurrent sentences of one year’s imprisonment on the convictions under s 247(a) of the Crimes Act, and a  concurrent  sentence  of  three  months’  imprisonment  on  the  conviction  under s 247(b).

[70]     I order that, under s 86 of the Sentencing Act, you are to serve a minimum of

50 per cent of the sentence, which is seven and a half years.

Mr Debreceny

[71]	On your single conviction for importing methamphetamine you are sentenced to a term of nine and a half years’ imprisonment.

Ms Cummins

[72]     On your single conviction for possession of methamphetamine for supply,

you are sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment.

[73]     Stand down.

Dobson J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Wellington
Pacific Coast Law, Papamoa for Chea
C J Tennet, Wellington for Dao
Jefferies Law, Wellington for Cummins and Debreceny