EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TAURANGA CRI [2016] NZDC NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor

Transcription

1 EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TAURANGA CRI [2016] NZDC NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor v ROYCE THOMAS MATOE Defendant Hearing: 16 August 2016 Appearances: Sergeant H Murphy for the Prosecutor S Robb for the Defendant Judgment: 16 August 2016 NOTES OF JUDGE P S ROLLO ON SENTENCING [1] Royce Thomas Matoe, you are a 24-year-old man, you are for sentence today on 44 charges that, by deception and without claim of right, you obtained possession of property, various building items the property of Bunnings New Zealand and in some instances other victims. [2] This offending took place during the period 11 December 2015 to 21 March There were 24 offences relating to 11 December The balance of the offences are spread over the period 21 January to 21 March. Total loss caused by your dishonest behaviour is $61, NEW ZEALAND POLICE v ROYCE THOMAS MATOE [2016] NZDC [16 August 2016]

2 [3] You were employed in the building industry. You became addicted to methamphetamine, you say because of the actions of a local gang feeding you methamphetamine until you were addicted. You then became the pawn of the gang you say. They wanted various items of building materials and you supplied it to them. The unspoken exchange was that you continued to receive methamphetamine from the gang. [4] As a result, there has been substantial loss, primarily to Bunnings, in the figure of some $42, Two of the other victims have a loss of $17, [5] You have an addictive personality, Mr Matoe, according to your pre-sentence report writer, but also members of your family, your parents. You are a young man who has been involved in the building industry for some seven or eight years. You are well regarded for your work ethic and your level of skill, but you are someone who is easily led, you have this addictive personality that is reflected in the fact that you have five convictions for drink-driving. You have had the advantage of a significant rehabilitative counselling course programme but you have still offended with drink-driving, notwithstanding that. [6] The further charges which you face today are three charges of driving whilst disqualified, with offence dates 22 September 2015 that is combined with providing false information to an enforcement officer, then 19 January 2016, then again 27 June 2016, that is combined with a failing to stop. You also have two breaches of Court bail relating to 17 February and 22 February [7] Your explanation for the driving offending was that you were focused on your methamphetamine habit but also a young child born of your partner of 10 years, whose presence I acknowledge in Court today as with other members of your family. You are a man who has no assets, no income at this time, you have been remanded in custody for some time on these charges. You have some minor debts, including fines, less than $5000.

3 [8] To your credit you offer $100 per week reparation to the victims of the offending. Once you are released from your sentence and are in full-time employment, that seems a realistic sum given that prior to this offending I am told you were earning in the region of $1000 a week through your work. [9] The pre-sentence report which is before me refers to the number of charges, the extent of the loss, your personal circumstances and the repeat nature of your offending despite community-based interventions, notably with your drink-driving record. It recommends a sentence of imprisonment but comments that there is a home detention address available. That is sought by your counsel, Ms Robb. [10] You were directed to attend restorative justice but that did not take place at the wish of the victims. You express, what is referred to in the pre-sentence report as, genuine remorse and I am prepared to accept that is so. [11] As to sentencing, it seems to me, looking at the aggravating circumstances of your dishonesty offending first of all, is the number of charges, 44 charges, the duration of the offending spread over a four month period, the amount of the loss, $61,251.94, as I have referred to. There was a significant breach of trust, the victims of your offending were vulnerable and of course your motive was not only to maintain your illegal purchase of methamphetamine, but to do the work, you say, of this gang. That was illegal, of course, as the purpose of your offending. [12] The additionally aggravating circumstances of course are the driving whilst disqualified offences. You have four prior convictions for driving whilst disqualified. You pleaded guilty to the initial driving while disqualified charge from 22 September You were remanded through to 22 February 2016 date for sentence, but failed to attend. [13] In the interim you were arrested for a further driving while disqualified on 19 January 2016 as I have referred to. That of course was committed on bail on the first charge and then the subsequent offending on 27 June 2016, aggravated by the failing to stop charge as well.

4 [14] The starting point in my view for this offending is one of imprisonment. I would rank the culpability of your dishonesty offending as in the high range although it is over a relatively short period of time, it is the fact that there were 44 separate offences and a substantial loss to the victims. [15] Secondly, the driving whilst disqualified offending was reckless of your obligations to the community with your prior driving record of five drink-driving convictions, you are properly someone who was off the road and one can add that your addictive personality does not assist that circumstance, but you have ignored your obligations, ignored the fact that you were subject to bail conditions and awaiting sentence on the offence of 22 September 2015 and committed the further offences of driving whilst disqualified. Those are significant aggravating circumstances. [16] I consider the appropriate starting point for the dishonesty offending is one of two years imprisonment, that there should be an uplift of 12 months to take into account the three charges of driving whilst disqualified, there should be a further uplift of three months to take into account your relevant previous convictions for driving whilst disqualified and the fact that you were on bail at that time should be a further uplift of two months to take into account the breaches of bail. That is a top point of three years five months imprisonment. [17] I consider that a discount of 12 months, to have regard to your guilty pleas. Saying that, it seems to me that conviction was inevitable on a number of the charges, including the driving charges. To take into account your personal circumstances, you have an absence of previous dishonesty offending, which is to your credit, and I take into account the offer of amends which you make. That would leave an end sentence of two years five months imprisonment for all this offending. Therefore, I deal with these matters on the following basis. [18] On those charges of obtaining by deception, where the maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment, I impose 18 months imprisonment.

5 [19] Those where the maximum is three months imprisonment, I impose three months concurrently. [20] On the driving while disqualified charges, the three of them, I impose, looking at the totality, I make that nine months imprisonment. [21] On the breaches of bail, two months imprisonment on each charge, again concurrent. The nine months is cumulative on the 18 months I have imposed. [22] On the three charges of driving while disqualified, I disqualify you for a period of 15 months from today. [23] I impose three months cumulative disqualified on the failing to stop. [24] On the providing false details charge I simply convict and discharge you on that matter, being a fine only matter. [25] That leaves the issue of reparation. The Courts have held, Mr Matoe, that in all relevant cases a Judge should impose reparation. The purpose is obviously to save victims of criminal dishonesty offending from the expense and anguish of having to bring separate Court proceedings to recover the loss. [26] However, the Court have said that reparation should only be imposed for a maximum period of five years and at a rate which is manageable. With some who are beneficiaries, the Court of Appeal or High Courts have referred to that at $50 per week. In your case you offer $100 per week and as I have said, that seems a realistic sum. [27] I am therefore going to direct that you pay $100 per week for a period of five years, commencing 28 days after your release from imprisonment. That will be payable pro rata, to the victims of your offending. That will be an order at the top level for you to pay reparation, but it is manageable given your personal circumstances and your abilities.

6 [28] Regrettably it will not pay the victims in full but it would be open for them to bring civil proceedings against you to recover the balance if they deem that to be appropriate. [29] So to recap, Mr Matoe, given the totality assessment, I impose a total sentence of two years three months imprisonment with 15 months disqualification on the driving while disqualified charges, plus an additional three months disqualification on the failing to stop charge and reparation at $100 per week for a period of five years, commencing 28 days after your release from imprisonment. [30] Mr Matoe, until you deal fully with your methamphetamine addiction, little will probably change in your life and you owe that to, not only yourself and your family who support you here today, but in large part to the victims of this offending that you rehabilitate yourself. [31] I make an order under s 129B Sentencing Act 2002 that notice be given to the registered owner of the Nissan utility motor vehicle, that is Maureen Champion, of the affects of allowing the vehicle to be used for unlawful driving, it would be liable to confiscation. P S Rollo District Court Judge