Police v Dodd - [2014] NZHC 1074

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2014-090-000388 [2014] NZHC 1074

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

v

BENJAMIN DODD

Hearing: 20 May 2014

Appearances:

M Regan for New Zealand Police
S Cullen for Defendant

Judgment:

20 May 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREWS J

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v DODD [2014] NZHC 1074 [20 May 2014]

Charges

[1] Mr Dodd you appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty in the District Court at Auckland on charges of offering to sell class C controlled drugs (ecstasy analogues), selling such class C controlled drugs, and conspiring to sell such class C controlled drugs. Each charge was laid as a representative charge, and the period of offending was between 30 May and 5 November 2011. The District Court declined to sentence you, and transferred your sentencing to this Court.

[2] I record that at the Crown’s request I have allowed the Police to withdraw the charge ending in -1990, which is a charge of participation in an organised criminal group.

[3] You are subject to a maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment on the charges of offering to sell and selling, and a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment on the charge of conspiring to sell.

[4] Before I go on, I acknowledge the presence here in Court today of your parents and your fiancée. Mr Dodd, there are many occasions in this Court when a prisoner is sentenced and has no family support. Any person who is here with family support, I have to say, is in a fortunate position, and you are fortunate to have the support of your family.

Relevant facts

[5] I will briefly outline the facts on which you are being sentenced. BZP, TFMP, Methedrone and MDPV are analogues to MDMA/ecstasy mimics. They are classified as class C controlled drugs. In October 2012, the Waitemata Organised Crime Group received text data and intercepted phone conversations relating to yourself and two other people, Mr Reeves and a Mr Reid. The information revealed that you and a fourth person, Mr Rakich, were members of a group which was involved in supplying ecstasy analogues (typically one of BZP, TFMP, Methedrone or MDPV).

[6] Between 30 May 2011 and 5 November 2011, you offered to sell 2,307 class C controlled drugs (ecstasy analogues), you sold 9,955 class C controlled drugs (ecstasy analogues), and you conspired to sell 13,285 class C controlled drugs (ecstasy analogues).

[7] When your home address was searched, Police found a single yellow pill; three tick lists containing names, numbers of pills being supplied and amounts owed by various people; $640 in cash; 20 vials of a clear liquid; and a small container with three purple pills and purple powder.

Personal circumstances

[8] You are now 24 years old. You were 21-22 at the time of your offending. Although you have three previous convictions, they are not relevant to the present offending.

[9] The pre-sentence report writer stated that you are currently enrolled for a Business and Sports Science course but…

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 Police v Dodd

Details

AGLC: Police v Dodd [2014] NZHC 1074
Case: [2014] NZHC 1074
Decision Date: 20 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Police v Dodd is a sentencing case heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The defendant, Benjamin Dodd, was convicted of offering to sell, selling, and conspiring to sell class C controlled drugs, specifically ecstasy analogues, between 30 May and 5 November 2011. The District Court declined to sentence Dodd and transferred his case to the High Court. The main legal issues in the case were determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, adjusting the starting point for personal factors, and deciding whether home detention or imprisonment would be the most suitable sentence. The starting point was determined to be four years' imprisonment due to the commercial nature and scale of Dodd's offending. However, the court applied discounts for personal factors such as Dodd's youth at the time of offending, strong rehabilitative efforts, genuine remorse, lack of relevant previous convictions, and his early guilty plea. The final adjusted sentence was two years' imprisonment, which the court considered the least restrictive sentence appropriate for Dodd's case.

The court held that a sentence of home detention would adequately meet the purposes and principles of sentencing, as well as being the least restrictive sentence possible. The court also ordered Dodd to complete 250 hours of community work as part of holding him accountable to the community for his offending by making compensation in the form of work. Dodd was sentenced to 12 months' home detention on each charge, to be served concurrently, and ordered to complete 250 hours of community work. The conditions of the home detention sentence included residing at a specified address, complying with electronic monitoring, abstaining from alcohol and non-prescription drugs, attending and completing any programmes, treatment, counselling or training as determined by the probation officer, and not associating with his co-offenders unless he had the written consent of the probation officer.

Orders