R v NAVARRO [2021] NZHC 593

R v NAVARRO [2021] NZHC 593 [19 March 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECRI-2019-004-6965[2021] NZHC 593THE QUEENvMICHAEL EUGENIO NAVARROHearing: 19 March 2021Appearances: J T Parry & A J A Gee for CrownM W Ryan for DefendantSentence: 19 March 2021SENTENCE OF PAUL DAVISON JSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, Auckland[1] Michael Eugenio Navarro at age 27 years and having earlier pleaded guilty toone charge of possession of the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine, for supply,you appear before the Court this morning for sentencing.1 Your offending relates tothe 109.6 kilograms of methamphetamine which was found by Police and Customs tobe in your possession.Your offending[2] You have visited New Zealand three times. You came here in October 2018and in April and May 2019. In each case you declared that you were here for a shortholiday.2 On 29 May 2019, two days before departing New Zealand at the end of yoursecond visit here, you arranged for the windows of a residential unit situated at ChonnyCrescent in Manurewa to be tinted. You then departed to return to Australia on 31 May2019.[3] On your third visit you arrived in Auckland on a flight from Sydney on 30 June2019, this being a fortnight after your co-offender, Mr Tran, had also arrived here fromAustralia. On this occasion when questioned by Customs you told them that youwould be in New Zealand for a couple of weeks to visit a sick relative. You wereunable to provide that relative's address or their contact details.[4] On 22 July 2019 you and Mr Tran travelled together to the Chonny Crescentaddress in a medium sized truck that Mr Tran had rented some two days previously.Later that same day, Mr Tran drove the rental truck to storage unit premises in MertonRoad, St Johns where he went to and accessed a storage unit. The following dayMr Tran picked you up from your accommodation, and later that same day you and hewent to a Warehouse store and purchased some high-visibility vests.[5] The following day 24 July, you and Mr Tran went together to the BunningsWarehouse store in New Lynn where you purchased items of protective wear and a1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(a). Maximum period of imprisonment: life.2 Trip 1: arriving on 22 October 2018, declaring you would stay for 18 days — for a holiday, thendeparting New Zealand for Australia on 7 December 2018. Trip 2: arriving on 4 April 2019,declaring you would stay for one month — for a holiday, then departing New Zealand for Australiaon 31 May 2019.circular saw. You then drove to the Chonny Crescent address where you went insidefor about an hour, before departing and travelling to a residential address in Avondalewhere you and Mr Tran were at that stage both staying.[6] On 25 July 2019 Police and Customs executed search warrants at the ChonnyCrescent and Avondale addresses, and at the storage unit that had been accessed byMr Tran and the vehicles which were being used by you and Mr Tran, including thetruck and another motor vehicle.[7] At the Chonny Crescent address the Police located 126 plastic pallets, two ofwhich had been partially deconstructed, revealing small specially designedcompartments containing a compressed powdered substance. Spread throughout theaddress were various power tools and hand tools, extraction equipment and containers.Also located were electronic scales, gloves, plastic zip-lock bags, boxes of aluminiumfoil and plastic zip-lock containers containing residue. In a locked room inside theaddress Police located clandestine laboratory equipment including: gas bottles; adouble burner hot plate; Pyrex dishes and jugs; and various other items. Also locatedin the locked room were four A4 sized zip-lock bags of white powder extracted fromthe plastic pallets. The white powder tested positive for methamphetamine.[8] All of the 126 pallets were examined and 51 of them were found to containconcealed methamphetamine. When those pallets were deconstructed and examinedby Customs, each was found to contain 95 cubes wrapped in plastic which containedmethamphetamine. On examination by the Institute of Environmental Science andResearch (ESR) the methamphetamine was found to be of 80 per cent purity, and theaverage weight of the methamphetamine concealed in each pallet was two kilograms.The total weight of methamphetamine recovered from the pallets weighed 102kilograms. The powder in the four A4 zip-lock bags was also found to bemethamphetamine of 80 per cent purity having a total weight of 7.6 kilograms. Thetotal amount of methamphetamine located and seized therefore being 109.6 kilograms.[9] The potential street value of the methamphetamine located at the ChonnyCrescent address is estimated by Police to be approximately NZ$7,000,000.[10] Police located and arrested you at the Avondale address on the occasion thatthe search warrants were executed. It appeared from the items found at the addressthat you and Mr Tran had both been staying there. Included amongst your possessionslocated there, was your backpack which contained a large amount of cash as well as aNew South Wales driver's licence with your photograph on it, although not your ownname. Another large amount of cash was found hidden inside the dishwasher at thataddress.[11] The storage unit in Merton Road that Mr Tran had accessed was found byPolice to be empty, although on the floor were pieces of New Zealand Customs tape.Personal circumstances and background[12] The pre-sentence report prepared by the Department of Corrections states thatyou have no history of criminal offending either in New Zealand or Australia.However, I note that a New South Wales Police report obtained shortly after thatpre-sentence report was written, records that you do have quite a number ofconvictions in Australia for driving related offences and several for the possession ofprohibited drugs and equipment for administering prohibited drugs. I am told by yourcounsel that those convictions which related to the drug offences arose from cannabisrelated circumstances and possession of cannabis.[13] You were born and raised in Sydney amongst your immediate and extendedfamily which had its origins in Chile. Before coming to New Zealand and yourinvolvement in this offending, you had worked in a landscaping business operated byone of your relatives for some five years before leaving to work for anotherlandscaping firm. An associate offered you some work in New Zealand that wouldtake two months and for which you would be paid $10,000. You say that you weretold that the work would involve you being responsible for setting up a warehouse,buying machinery, and driving around as required.[14] You told the author of the pre-sentence report that you were not aware that thework that you were to do involved drugs, and you say that you were "not told thewhole story of what was being imported." However you also say that although youfelt something was wrong, you did not want to look into it. You blame yourself formaking some bad decisions, trusting people, and not asking more questions.[15] I consider that explanation to be totally implausible. Having regard to theamount of money you were to be paid, and the fact that you were making arrangementsto have the windows of a residential unit tinted so as to prevent anyone from beingable to see what was going on inside the unit, and your activities together with Mr Tranfollowing your arrival, it is clear that you knew what you were involved in and that itwas unlawful and in the circumstances the only sensible explanation is that you knewwhat you were here in New Zealand to do related to drugs.[16] You also told the author of the pre-sentence report that over the period duringwhich you have been held in custody since your arrest, you have spoken to drugaddicts that you have come across and have come to observe what drugs do to people,and that you are now extremely remorseful about your actions and regret yourinvolvement with the drug offending. However I note that the s 27 report which I willrefer to shortly in more detail shortly records that one of your brothers has a seriousmethamphetamine addiction, and you say that because of what you sawmethamphetamine had done to him you have never used that drug yourself. It istherefore clear that before you were arrested for this offending you well knew thedreadful effects of methamphetamine upon users, and I do not accept that it has onlybeen since you have had the opportunity of talking to drug addicts while you havebeen on remand that you have come to appreciate the scourge that methamphetamineis and its destructive effects on users and those close to them.[17] You say that you now realise how good your life was in Australia, even duringthe times when you may not have had enough work to do in the landscaping business.You have expressed sadness at being separated from your family, and from othersupportive people in your life.[18] The pre-sentence report assesses you as being at a low to medium risk ofre-offending. However, due to the scale and nature of your drug related offending andthe potential for your offending to cause harm to multiple victims, you are assessed asbeing of a medium to high risk of harm to others.[19] You have adopted a constructive approach to your inevitable sentence ofimprisonment, and you are hoping to be transferred to a correctional facility, whereyou can work using your skills as a landscaper and study towards qualifications inlandscaping. You are assessed as possessing a high to moderate degree of motivationto address your actions, and seek to alter the "bad" part of your life and provideyourself with a base for a better life following the completion of your sentence.[20] Whilst the pre-sentence report notes that given the seriousness of youroffending a sentence of imprisonment is inevitable, it also notes that you could benefitfrom attending at counselling and programmes that would address your attitudes andcriminal associations.Section 27 Cultural Background report[21] I have also read and considered the s 27 report detailing and commenting onyour personal, family and cultural background, which was obtained by your counselfor the purpose of providing the Court with detail of your background as it may relateto your offending.[22] The author Ms Shelley Turner says that in her opinion there is a demonstrativenexus between your background and your present offending which mitigates yourmoral culpability. You were born in Sydney, Australia, after your parents and fourolder siblings emigrated to Australia from South America. Your mother's return toChile following your parents' separation when you were five years old appears tohave had a significant effect on your life. While your mother subsequently returnedto Australia some six years later, Ms Turner observes that her absence over that periodcaused you to develop a sense of abandonment which had a negative impact on you,contributing to you developing an inability to trust people and build sustainablerelationships. As a child and a young teenager you were often left unsupervised, andyou began using cannabis on a daily basis when aged 13 and continued until you were21 years old. After frequent truancy during the previous two years, you left school atage 15 without any formal academic qualifications and poor prospects of employment.Ms Turner comments that your early use of cannabis may well have impacted on yourability to make decisions for yourself, and contributed to you having made unhealthylife choices.[23] To your credit, Ms Turner notes that you appear to have taken responsibilityfor your actions, and you do not seek to blame anyone else for your presentcircumstances.[24] While Ms Turner reports that she is unable to determine a strong causal nexusbetween your background and your offending, in her opinion the abandonment youexperienced when your mother returned to Chile for six years, and your history ofdaily cannabis use between the ages of 13 and 21 and its effect on your decisionmaking could be considered to be causative factors in your offending. Ms Turner saysthat in her opinion there is a demonstrative nexus between your background and youroffending which she considers mitigates your moral culpability, as I have said.Approach to sentencing[25] I will commence the sentencing by determining an adjusted starting point foryour offending, in accordance with the Court of Appeal's guidance in the case ofZhang v R.3 In that decision, the Court of Appeal established five bands into whichmethamphetamine-related offending can be placed, having regard to the quantity ofdrug involved in the offending, and it set out the range of potential penalties foroffending in each band. The Court confirmed that the quantity of the illegal drug isan important measure of culpability, as quantity is an indicator of the commercialityand of the harm it will cause to the community.4[26] However, the quantity of the methamphetamine is not the sole determinant ofculpability. I must also carefully consider your particular role in the offending. InZhang, the Court of Appeal divided the role played by offenders into three categories:5lesser, significant, and leading. The nature of the role you played in the course of youroffending will also inform my assessment of the gravity of the offending, and where3 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648.4 At [104].5 At [126].it should be placed within the relevant band for the purpose of determining theappropriate sentence for your offending.[27] Once I have determined the adjusted starting point, I will then adjust thatstarting point to take account of the aggravating and mitigating factors personal to you,as well as your guilty plea.6 By this process I will arrive at the end sentence to beimposed.[28] I will also consider whether a minimum period of imprisonment should beimposed, pursuant to s 86 of the Sentencing Act 2002.Sentencing purpose and principles[29] The purposes of sentencing you Mr Navarro are to hold you accountable forthe harm done to the community by your offending and to promote in you a sense ofresponsibility for and an acknowledgment of that harm.7 The sentence to be imposedis also intended to denounce your conduct and to deter you and any other person fromcommitting the same or similar offences. In determining the sentence to be imposedI must apply the principles of sentencing set out in s 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002including having regard to the gravity of your offending and the seriousness of youroffending and taking those factors into account, together with the seriousness of thetype of offence compared with other types of offences as indicated by the maximumpenalties prescribed. Also included within the matters to be taken into account are anyparticular circumstances relating to you that mean that a sentence that would otherwisebe appropriate, would in your case be disproportionately severe.Crown and defence submissionsStarting pointCrown[30] Mr Parry for the Crown submits that given the quantity of 109.6 kilograms ofmethamphetamine in your possession for supply, your offending is appropriately6 Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296.7 Sentencing Act 2002, s 7.placed in the higher end of "band five" of Zhang. Mr Parry submits that as it cannotbe conclusively determined who was the leader of the New Zealand operation asbetween Mr Tran and yourself, that you and he should therefore be dealt with as havingoperated on the same level. Mr Parry submits, that like Mr Tran, your role should beseen to be at the higher end of the "lesser" role category in Zhang. In support of hissubmission he notes that you travelled to New Zealand specifically for the purpose ofdealing with the methamphetamine in the pallets, which demonstrates a level ofpremeditation. And that is further supported by the fact that you had come to NewZealand on two previous occasions and did not have a legitimate reason for comingon 30 June 2019, when there was in fact no sick relative for you to visit.[31] Mr Parry also notes that during your second trip, you took steps to prepare theChonny Crescent address, Manurewa for processing the pallets to extract themethamphetamine, by arranging for it to have its windows tinted. He also notes thatyou travelled with Mr Tran to the Chonny Crescent address in the medium size rentaltruck which Mr Tran had rented and which had been used to transport themethamphetamine from a storage unit, to the Chonny Crescent address, which hadbeen prepared.[32] Counsel also refers to you having purchased power tools with large bundles ofcash to carry out your role of extracting the methamphetamine from the plastic pallets.Also relevant to assessment of your role is the drug manufacturing and baggingparaphernalia located at the Chonny Crescent address. The Crown says that havingregard to the quantity of drugs involved which you must have had an appreciation ofas evident by the significant amount of equipment purchased and required to extract itfrom the pallets, you clearly must have been aware of the scale of the operation.[33] The Crown says that while it is clear that you were taking instructions from anoverseas syndicate, it does not appear that you had any oversight while in New Zealandand that you were essentially trusted to carry out your role here on your own, that ison your own together with Mr Tran. The Crown says that absence of any oversightand the fact you were trusted to carry out your role in New Zealand in relation to whatwas a significant commercial drug operation are aspects of your offending that informan assessment of your role as appropriately sitting at the high end of the lesser categoryin terms of role.[34] Mr Parry also refers me to analogous cases as assistance in setting your startingpoint.8[35] The Crown also says that in determining the sentence to be imposed theprinciple of parity between co-offenders is an important consideration.9 The Crownsubmits that as your role in the offending was at the same level as that of Mr Tran andof course involved the same quantity of methamphetamine, that the same starting pointof 21 years' imprisonment adopted in Mr Tran's case should also be adopted in yourcase. And so, having regard to all of those matters the Crown submits that theappropriate starting point for your offending is 21 years' imprisonment.Defence[36] Mr Ryan on your behalf accepts that your offending falls within band five ofZhang and that the appropriate starting point is between 10 years' imprisonment andlife imprisonment.[37] Mr Ryan also accepts that your actions in relation to the offending place youin the lesser role category of Zhang albeit at the higher end of the range of culpabilitywithin that category. He submits that having regard to the amount ofmethamphetamine involved and your role in the offending being the same as that ofMr Tran, there is no reason why the same starting point of 21 years' imprisonmentshould not be adopted in your case too.8 R v Leung [2019] NZHC 3299 (in this case where 109 kg of methamphetamine was possessed forthe purposes of supply, the two defendants with a "lesser" role, received a sentence start point of21 years' imprisonment); and R v Chen [2009] NZCA 445, [2010] 2 NZLR 158 (counsel cautionsas this case was decided under Fatu and not Zhang, notwithstanding this, Mr Parry submits the 25year starting point for charges related to the import and sale of 95 kg of methamphetamine and154 kg of pseudoephedrine, is illustrative).9 Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(e).Mitigating factorsCrown[38] The Crown submits, that as a foreign national, your serving a term ofimprisonment in New Zealand removed from your family and support network is amitigating factor, as imprisonment here will be harder for you to bear than would bethe case for a New Zealand resident.10[39] As regards the discount to be allowed for your guilty plea, the Crown notesthat there was some delay in entering your plea of guilty due to a challenge that youmounted as regards your role in the offending which resulted in the charge ofimportation initially laid being withdrawn. The Crown submits nevertheless that youentered your plea at the same time or soon after, as was the case with Mr Tran, andthat in those circumstances a discount of 25 per cent of your sentence should be madeavailable to you, as it was in the case of Mr Tran.11[40] The Crown submits that on the basis of other mitigating factors the overalldiscount for personal aggravating and mitigating factors should not exceed five percent.Defence[41] Mr Ryan submits there are several personal mitigating factors to be taken intoaccount. First, he notes your total lack of criminal convictions. However, as clarifiedin Court this morning, it appears that you do have a record of some criminalconvictions in Australia for drug related offending which, although not of a naturewhich would warrant any adjustment to the sentence here by way of an uplift, doesnot enable you to claim to be a first offender without a criminal record.[42] Mr Ryan further submits that you are genuinely remorseful, as is evident fromthe contents of your letter to the court. He submits that the documents that he hasproduced "reflecting the work that [you have] undertaken while remanded in custody"10 Zhang v R, above n 3, at [162]-[163], citing R v Yung [2017] NZHC 895 at [6]; and R v Yuen [2016]NZHC 571 at [15].11 Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607, (2010) 24 CRNZ 966 at [75].and the certificates that you have been provided with since you have been on remandshowing your work ethic underline your remorse and your motivation andcommitment to rehabilitation. Mr Ryan also notes your youth, and says that you havea future ahead of you by reason of your commitment to rehabilitation. He did notsuggest a specific discount for those factors.[43] Mr Ryan does however submit that you should receive a five per cent discountfor the fact that you are a foreign national and will suffer difficulties in serving asentence of imprisonment in a foreign country away from and separated from yourfamily.[44] Mr Ryan submits that you should be afforded a full 25 per cent discount toreflect the fact your guilty plea was entered early, and he says the plea was enteredshortly after negotiations with the Crown regarding their withdrawal of theimportation charge.[45] In summary, Mr Ryan submits that discounts totalling 30 per cent should beapplied to your starting point without quantifying any further discounts.Minimum period of imprisonmentCrown[46] Mr Parry submits that a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) is warrantedin your case, because:12[I]t is deterrence, denunciation and accountability that are likely to be at theforefront of decisions in drug cases involving the imposition of a minimumperiod of imprisonment. That in turn means that as a general rule, lengthyminimum periods of imprisonment are properly reserved for cases involvingsignificant commercial dealing.[47] The Crown notes that should an MPI not be imposed, you will become eligiblefor parole after approximately five years in custody. The Crown submits this wouldbe insufficient to meet the four objectives set out in s 86(2) of the Sentencing Act.Mr Parry submits that an MPI of 50 per cent would be appropriate in your case to12 Zhang v R, above n 3, at [171].satisfy the interests of parity and to send a message of deterrence to those consideringinvolving themselves in the importation and distribution of methamphetamine.Defence[48] Mr Ryan submits I ought not to impose a minimum period of imprisonmentupon you, as after taking the proposed discounts into account, the theoreticalend-sentence you will serve would be between 14.5 - 15 years' imprisonment. Hissubmission is that, this lengthy sentence, in and of itself is sufficient as a deterrent toanyone who may become involved in drug offending. He submits that a 15 yearsentence is effective to denounce your conduct, to hold you accountable for the harmyou have done to the community and to deter others from becoming involved in similaroffending.[49] Mr Ryan realistically accepts that your offending is significant commercialdealing.13 However, he submits your role in the offending is an importantconsideration in determining an MPI and whether it should be imposed, and that asyour offending falls within the "lesser" category, albeit towards the higher end in termsof role, a 15 year term of imprisonment is "stern and condign", and fulfils theobjectives of an MPI. Mr Ryan also submits that if an MPI is not imposed, you arelikely to be deported back to Australia when you become eligible for parole afterserving one-third of your sentence, being around five years, and that, in your particularcircumstances is a further factor telling against the imposition of an MPI.Discussion[50] I have had regard to the cases that have been cited to me by the Crown andDefence in setting the starting point,14 and note that Zhang, although a tariff judgment,is not a substitute for "flexibility and discretion in setting sentences".15 At the outsetI note that there is little difference between the submissions of counsel as regards the13 At [171].14 R v Tran [2020] NZHC 2633 (co-defendant of Mr Navarro, 109.6kg of methamphetamine, upperlevel lesser role, 21-year start point). McDonald v R [2020] NZHC 1509 (137.5kg ofmethamphetamine, low level significant role, first time offender, 23-year start point). R v Leung,(with some attention paid to R v Chen [although I note this was decided under the Fatu guidelinedecision) both discussed above at n 8..15 Zhang v R, above n 3, at [120].appropriate starting point. Both the Crown and Defence submit that the starting pointof 21 years is appropriate. As 109.6 kilograms of 80 per cent purity methamphetaminewas found in your possession for the purposes of supply, your offending clearly fallswithin band five of Zhang. In fixing the starting point the real question is that of yourrole. Recognising the objective of maintaining parity on this issue with yourco-offender Mr Tran, I consider that your activities also place you in the "lesser role"category in Zhang terms, albeit at the higher end of the range of culpability within thatcategory. You may initially have become involved in the operation as a result of somenaivety on your part and the opportunity presented to you to earn some money whenbusiness was slow, but it appears that it was the money to be gained that motivatedyou to take the risk of becoming involved in offending that I find you knew involvedmethamphetamine before you commenced your activities here. You were obviouslytrusted by the organisers of this significant drug operation with handling a largeamount of methamphetamine and in doing so without oversight. It is unclear whetherMr Tran was your supervisor, or you were his, or you were working alongside oneanother without either of you in fact giving instructions to the other. I shallaccordingly proceed on the basis your role was the same as his,16 which places you atthe more significant end of the "lesser" category and I shall set the starting point inyour case at 21 years' imprisonment, as I did in his case.Adjustments for personal circumstances[51] I now turn to adjust that starting point by taking your personal factors intoaccount together with a discount for your guilty plea which will be quantified as apercentage of the adjusted starting point, or a proportion of it.17[52] I accept that there are some personal mitigating factors applicable to you.[53] At the time of the offending, you were 25 years old. I note this Court's and theCourt of Appeal's reference to the former Chief Science Advisor for the PrimeMinister's report, that:18 "recent findings of scientific research indicate that maturation16 R v Tran, above n 14, at [38].17 Moses v R, above n 6, at [46].18 Wan v R [2020] NZCA 328 at [28]; citing Rarere v Police [2012] NZHC 779 at [36]; citing in turnSir Peter Gluckman, Improving the Transition: Reducing Social and Psychological MorbidityDuring Adolescence (Office of the Prime Minister's Science Advisory Committee, May 2011).- among boys especially - is not complete until well into the third decade of life, andthat the last functions to mature are those of impulse control and judgment."[54] Having regard to your comparative youth at the time of your offending,19 andwhat I accept to be your genuine remorse as evident from the letter you have writtento the Court20 and your constructive steps towards rehabilitation that you have takensince you have been in custody, I shall afford you a five per cent discount from thesentencing starting point.[55] A lengthy term of imprisonment will be particularly difficult for you. Servinga sentence of imprisonment here in New Zealand means that you will be isolated fromyour family in Australia. Zhang confirms that this can be treated and dealt with as amitigating factor for a foreign national.21 However, it is important to note that this isa discretionary consideration and it is a factor that does not justify a discountautomatically. I am also mindful of the importance of maintaining parity in sentencingoffenders, whether they originate from other countries or from within New Zealand,consistency in sentencing is an important principle.22 There is however appellateguidance saying that "the isolation of, and denial of family support to, foreignnationals imprisoned for drug offending may be treated as a mitigating factor when itmakes the sentence harder than usual to bear."23 The Court of Appeal has observedthat "discounts for foreign national status in cases of drug importation have beenmodest, as the offending is such that it carries an inherent risk of imprisonment for alengthy period in a foreign country."24 Taking those matters into account, and on thebasis of this guidance, I determine a moderate five cent discount of your sentence onaccount of that factor discount is appropriate.19 Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(2)(a). Young people are more vulnerable or susceptible to negativeinfluences and outside pressures, and have greater difficulty regulating their behaviour andimpulses, see: Churchward v R [2011] NZCA 531 at [77].20 Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(2)(f). Remorse is not necessarily shown just by a guilty plea. I note yourletter to the court, and your contrition to the pre-sentence report writer, I find that genuine remorseis demonstrated by the defendant, therefore I grant a sentencing discount separately from that forthe guilty plea. See: Hessell v R, above n 11, at [64], and Moses v R, above n 6, at [24].21 Zhang v R, above n 3, at [163].22 R v Zhou [2009] NZCA 365 at [26].23 Zhang v R, above n 3, at [163].24 Keino v R [2019] NZCA 457 at [59].[56] Turning to your cultural background, I can see a demonstrative nexus betweenaspects of your background and your offending.25 They go some way to reducing yourculpability. I acknowledge that the social deprivation, specifically the sense ofabandonment you experienced as a result of your mother's return to Chile, and how itcontributed to your reliance on cannabis and in turn your adverse educationaloutcomes, leaving you without qualifications and without employment prospects andotherwise vulnerable is a significant factor that appears to have contributed to yourinvolvement in criminality. I note that you have a history of drug offending inAustralia, not particularly serious, but that it continued and started from acomparatively young age and you have been convicted for a number of offencesrelated to the use of drugs or the possession of equipment for the administration of anduse of drugs. So clearly over a period starting from age 13 and through until 21 andbeyond, you were involved in heavy cannabis use and it has had an effect upon yourlife thereafter. Taking your background into account as described in the s 27 report, Iconsider that a discount of five per cent to recognise those factors as being relevant toyour culpability is an appropriate discount.[57] That leaves your guilty plea and having regard to the matters I have alreadyaddressed, I am satisfied that your guilty plea was entered at an early stage in terms ofthe progression of your case when the issue of another charge was resolved and yourplea was entered promptly thereafter. In these circumstances I am prepared to affordyou a 25 per cent discount of your sentence on account of your guilty plea.26Minimum period of imprisonment[58] The Court of Appeal in Zhang emphasised that minimum periods ofimprisonment must not be imposed as a matter of routine or in a mechanistic sort ofway.27 The Court said that as a general rule, lengthy minimum periods of25 Zhang v R, above n 3, at [162].26 Hessell v R, above n 11, at [45]-[47]. The benefits that a guilty plea brings to the criminal justicesystem, and the participants in it, supply the principal justification for the guilty plea discount:Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296 at [22].27 Zhang v R, above n 3, at [169].imprisonment are properly reserved for cases involving significant commercialdealing. The present is clearly such a case.28[59] Section 86 of the Sentencing Act 2002 relevantly provides that where a courtimposes a sentence of more than two years' imprisonment it may at the same time thatit imposes sentence, order that an offender serve a minimum period of imprisonmentthat is longer than the period otherwise applicable under s 84(1) of the Parole Act 2002if satisfied that that period is insufficient for the purposes of: holding the offenderaccountable for the harm done to the community by the offending; denouncing theoffender's conduct; deterring the offender or others from committing the same offenceor a similar offence; or protecting the community from the offender.[60] Mr Navarro, I consider that your offending is sufficiently serious that servingthe standard minimum period of one-third of the sentence before becoming eligiblefor release on parole would be insufficient29 to hold you to accountable for the harmdone to the community.30 Given that you do not pose any significant risk of re-offending, the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment is not necessary toprotect the community from you on that account.31 While the Court will appropriatelyhesitate to impose a minimum term of imprisonment upon a defendant who presents alow likelihood of re-offending,32 I have nevertheless decided to impose a minimumperiod of imprisonment upon you. I do so because of your willing participation in asubstantial commercial-scale drug importation/distribution operation which had thepotential to cause very serious social damage and consequences amongst the widerNew Zealand community.33[61] You were prepared to play a supporting role in what you knew to be a majordrug operation in order to secure a financial benefit for yourself. To be eligible forrelease after one third of your sentence, which in your case would be around five years,28 Zhang v R, above n 3, at [171]: it is "deterrence, denunciation and accountability that are likely tobe at the forefront of decisions in drug cases involving the imposition of minimum periods ofimprisonment."29 R v Brown [2002] 3 NZLR 670, (2002) 19 CRNZ 534 (CA) at [35].30 Sentencing Act 2002, s 86(2)(a).31 Section 86(2)(d).32 Prasad v R [2020] NZCA 483 at [32].33 Zhang v R, above n 3, at [263].would be an insufficient response to your serious offending, and I consider that aminimum period of imprisonment is required to confer a degree of reality on thesentence.34 Your personal mitigating factors are not so compelling as to requirerecognition by the Court by deciding not to impose a minimum period ofimprisonment.35 In order to serve as a clear deterrent to offending of this kind by youor anyone minded to involve themselves in drug offending such as occurred here, andto hold you accountable and denounce your offending, I determine that the appropriateminimum period of imprisonment to be imposed on you Mr Navarro will be somethingjust under half of the sentence I shall impose.Sentence[62] Mr Navarro would you please stand.End sentence[63] Applying discounts totalling 40 per cent to a sentence starting point of 21 years'imprisonment yields an end sentence of 12 years and seven months' imprisonment.[64] On the charge of possession of the Class A controlled drug, methamphetamine,for supply I accordingly sentence you to 12 years and seven months' imprisonment.[65] In relation to a minimum period of imprisonment, I shall impose a minimumperiod of 50 per cent of the sentence I have imposed.[66] I make an order for the forfeiture to the Crown of the amount of cash whichwas located by the Police in the search of the premises at Avondale in the sum of$76,550.00[67] You may stand down._____________Paul Davison J34 R v Gordon [2009] NZCA 145 at [15].35 Shaw v R [2016] NZCA 110 [25]; and Fleming v R [2011] NZCA 646 at [22].