Drug courier dad’s bond with baby one reason he’s been set free

The decision was released by the Supreme Court this afternoon. File Photo / Mark Mitchell

A man who helped courier at least 6kg of meth across the country has been set free, partly due to the bond he built with his infant son while on bail and home detention.

Jason Brendon Philip was originally sentenced to a year’s home detention for the drug offending but was later resentenced to two years and 11 months in prison after an appeal from the Crown.

But Philip’s bond with his baby - born after his arrest - and the impact of that bond on his rehabilitation were part of the reason the Supreme Court today decided to set Philip free.

He and his partner Jazinda Lee Hayman were part of two police operations, though the main target was co-offender Kenny McMillan.

In 2018 and 2019, Philip was involved in transporting five shipments of meth from Auckland to McMillan in Wellington, accompanied by Hayman and at times, other co-offenders.

They hid the meth in cars, but one of the cars driven by another co-offender was impounded in Taupō for an unrelated driving offence, and the meth was then discovered by police.

Across the five incidents, police estimate a total of 6-10kg of meth was transported, but Justice Cheryl Gwyn sentenced Philip on the basis it was 6kg.

The latest appeal to the Supreme Court focused partly on whether the Court of Appeal was right to find his home detention sentence was manifestly inadequate. It also assessed whether there should have been a discount to the prison sentence to factor in the impact on Philip’s child.

It was noted Hayman had been given a 20 per cent discount on her own sentence due to the impact on the child.

Philip’s original sentence included a 10 per cent discount for the impact on the boy, but the Court of Appeal removed the discount.

At appeal, Philip’s lawyer argued the discount was supported by the evidence of clinical psychologist Dr Duncan Thomson, who visited the family at home and held a follow-up video call with Philip.

His evidence was that there was a link between Philip’s rehabilitation and his ongoing relationship with the child.

“The reports before the Judge showed that Mr Philip had responded well to the rehabilitation programme he attended and that the presence of his son and his involvement with the child were positive factors in his ongoing rehabilitation prospects,” the Supreme Court decision said.

“In these circumstances, where at the time of sentencing the rehabilitative prospects were to the fore, reversing the sentence did lead to an injustice.”

Philip also argued there could be negative effects on his child’s future if he were to go to prison.

Counsel for the Crown disagreed that the impact on the child would be significant enough to warrant a discount, and said such discounts were usually only used when the imprisonment would deprive the child of their primary caregiver.

The Supreme Court disagreed, saying the discount was warranted.

Other points of appeal included an assertion Philip’s culpability in the offending was less than what the Court of Appeal assessed it to be, that his offending was addiction-driven, and that a starting sentencing point of six years in prison was more appropriate than the starting point of eight years adopted by the appeal court.

“Our view is that the starting point imposed by the High Court, albeit at the margin, was within the available range (at the worst, a little below),” the Supreme Court decision said.

The Supreme Court quashed Philip’s sentence and replaced it with one of one year and seven months in prison. Due to factors such as parole and time served already on bail, home detention and in custody, the court ruled Philip could be immediately released.

He has been on bail since the earlier appeal.

Philip will remain subject to parole until the sentence end date.