P J Kaye for Appellant Mr Martel M A Corlett QC for Appellant Mr Roux B A Crowley for Appellant Ms Vincent Z R Johnston for Respondent
Judgment:
10 August 2018 at 11 am
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe applications to extend time for filing Ms Vincent and Mr Roux’s appeals are granted.
BThe respondent’s application for leave to file Mr Burn’s affidavit out of time is declined.
CMr Martel and Mr Roux’s appeals against sentence are dismissed.
DMs Vincent’s appeal against sentence is allowed in part. The sentence of 14 years and eight months’ imprisonment is quashed and replaced with a sentence of 12 years and 11 months’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years and five months.
Rodney Martel, Rachel Vincent and Reghardt Roux were each convicted of a number of charges relating to their involvement in the importation of significant quantities of restricted drugs into New Zealand. They were sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment.[1]
They each now appeal their sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive. In particular, they submit that the sentencing Judge, Palmer J, adopted starting points that were too high and failed to give them sufficient discounts for their guilty pleas and personal mitigating factors. Ms Vincent and Mr Roux also submit that the imposition of minimum periods of imprisonment (MPIs) on them was not warranted.
Background
Between 9 June 2015 and 20 April 2016, Customs intercepted 37 packages containing the restricted drugs methamphetamine, cocaine, GBL or MDMA, sent to multiple addresses in Auckland, Christchurch and the wider Canterbury region. Mr Martel, Mr Roux and Ms Vincent were each convicted of being involved in the importation of some or all of the packages. In particular:
(a)Mr Martel was involved in the importation of all 37 packages over a 10 month period. The packages contained approximately 5.683 kilograms of methamphetamine, 7.7 litres of GBL, 31 grams of cocaine, 1,986 tablets of MDMA and 31 grams of MDMA powder. He pleaded guilty on the morning of trial to representative charges of importing methamphetamine, GBL, MDMA and cocaine. He was sentenced to an end sentence of 18 and a half years’ imprisonment, with an MPI of 50 per cent (nine years and three months).
(b)Ms Vincent was involved in the importation of approximately 3.63 kilograms of methamphetamine, 5.8 litres of GBL, 31 grams of cocaine, 1,986 tablets of MDMA and 31 grams of MDMA powder in 24 packages over a three month period.[2] She pleaded guilty on the first day of trial to representative charges of…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Martel v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Martel v The Queen [2018] NZCA 305
Case
[2018] NZCA 305
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Rodney Martel, Rachel Vincent and Reghardt Roux were each convicted of being involved in the importation of significant quantities of restricted drugs into New Zealand. They were sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment. They now appeal their sentences on the basis that they are manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal dismissed Martel and Roux's appeals against sentence but allowed Vincent's appeal in part. Vincent's sentence of 14 years and eight months' imprisonment was reduced to 12 years and 11 months' imprisonment because she was entitled to a 25 per cent discount for her guilty plea, rather than the 15 per cent discount afforded by the Judge. The Court of Appeal found that Vincent's guilty plea was made at the first reasonable opportunity, given that she had been unable to obtain legal advice until the eve of trial. Martel and Roux's appeals were dismissed because the sentences imposed on them were not manifestly excessive. In particular, the Court of Appeal found that the Judge's assessment of the appellants' roles in the offending, and the starting points he adopted, were appropriate. The Court of Appeal also found that the Judge appropriately assessed the appellants' mitigating factors and guilty plea discounts. Finally, the Court of Appeal found that the imposition of minimum periods of imprisonment on Vincent and Roux was appropriate.