Drug sentence increased on appeal
A Nelson methamphetamine dealer who received a discounted sentence for drugs charges after successfully completing rehab will now be spending longer behind bars.
Jamie Lee Weiss will now serve a prison term of three years and 11 months on 22 charges that mostly related to using and dealing methamphetamine and cannabis.
She was initially sentenced to two years and nine months’ imprisonment, but a successful appeal by the Crown has seen that quashed and replaced with the longer sentence.
Justice Helen Cull of the High Court at Christchurch found the Nelson sentencing judge made an error when he calculated a discount for Weiss’ rehabilitation efforts.
Justice Cull ruled that while Judge David Ruth applied legitimate discounts for both rehabilitation and guilty pleas, he compounded the discounts incorrectly, resulting in an final sentence that was too low.
She also decided a 35 per cent discount for rehabilitative efforts was too high.
Instead, Justice Cull ruled that a 25 per cent discount for rehabilitation, followed by the 25 per cent discount for guilty plea, resulted in an ‘‘appropriate’’ sentence.
In her written decision, Justice Cull said in her view ‘‘after balancing the need to apply a consistent sentencing approach with a legitimate discount to encourage and foster rehabilitation and treatment, an appropriate discount at the higher end is 25 per cent’’.
Crown Law appealed the initial sentence on the basis it was ‘‘manifestly inadequate’’ and said the discount had been ‘‘incorrectly calculated’’ and was ‘‘plainly excessive’’.
The Crown had sought a discount of 20 per cent, and added that the outcome of the case had the potential to create different sentencing outcomes, ‘‘depending on whether or not the offender can afford treatment at private clinics’’.
Weiss was given a sentence indication of five years and three months’ imprisonment, but was granted electronically- monitored bail to attend 22 weeks of rehabilitation before being sentenced.
During her sentencing in Nelson in April, Judge Ruth told Weiss he was offering her a bargain - a discount that would incentivise her to remain rehabilitated and not come before the courts again.
He also took into account that she was a first offender and didn’t have gang connections.
Defence lawyer Stevenson, who said the original sentencing approach was ‘‘almost unprecedented’’, told the High Court its focus should not be on the mathematical calculation of a discount, but whether the sentence was inadequate.
He pointed to cases where the courts had allowed reduced sentences when offenders had demonstrated significant rehabilitation of addictions.
However, Justice Cull found the overall sentence had been inadequate, and also highlighted the need for the court to be consistent when applying sentence discounts.