R v Bell - [2017] NZHC 1818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2016-009-002757 [2017] NZHC 1818

THE QUEEN

v

JAMES MACADAM BELL

Hearing: 2 August 2017

Counsel:

T J McGuigan for Crown
AMM Ives for Mr Bell

Sentence:

2 August 2017

SENTENCE OF DUFFY J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland
Annabel Ives, Barrister, Auckland

R v BELL [2017] NZHC 1818 [2 August 2017]

[1] Mr Bell you are to be sentenced on offences involving the importation of Class A and B controlled drugs and possession of a Class C controlled drug. You pleaded guilty to these offences following a sentencing indication from me, a copy of which will be be attached to the sentencing notes.

[2] Your offending was detected as a result of a police operation codenamed

‘Operation Spar’ which involved four other persons.

[3] In total you were involved in the importation of approximately 323 grams of methamphetamine and 1.9 litres of gamma-butyrolactone (GBL). You were found in possession of 102 grams of cannabis.

[4] Your role in the offending, which is described in greater detail in the sentencing indication, was to provide a safe address for the receipt of packages containing the methamphetamine and the GBL. There were four such deliveries. The packages of illicit drugs were delivered to the business address of your employer, where they were handed to the receptionist, who passed them on to you. No doubt others who planned the importations thought delivery to a respectable business address would provide good cover for the illicit packages. In the sentencing indication I accepted that you undertook the role of “catcher” which is a term used to refer to persons at the bottom of an importation chain whose role is to receive the illegal drugs and to see them passed on to someone else.

[5] The summary of facts provides no evidence of you profiting from your actions. However, the pre-sentence report states that you have been using methamphetamine since 2007 with regular use of the drug increasing from monthly to eventually daily use. It seems the increase in use of methamphetamine coincided with your move to Auckland in 2010. You cite long working hours and the need to keep alert as one of the reasons for your methamphetamine use.

[6] You are 44 years old. You have no relevant convictions. The pre-sentence report reveals you are remorseful and keen to take steps to take steps to rehabilitate yourself including overcoming your drug addiction. You have already taken active

steps in that regard. You are an intelligent man who has had a successful career. I expect that if you put your mind to it you will be able to resolve your drug addiction. The pre-sentence report reveals you to be insightful and determined to do so. You also have the help of supportive family members, whose letters I have read and support of friends, some of whom are here today. Your offending has come as a shock to them. This is not surprising. You appear to have managed…

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 R v Bell

Details

AGLC: R v Bell [2017] NZHC 1818
Case: [2017] NZHC 1818
Decision Date: 2 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Bell, the defendant, James MacAdam Bell, faced sentencing for offences related to the importation of Class A and B controlled drugs, and possession of a Class C controlled drug. Bell pleaded guilty following a sentencing indication from the court. His involvement in the drug importation was part of a larger operation codenamed 'Operation Spar', which implicated four other individuals. Bell's role was to provide a safe address for the receipt of packages containing approximately 323 grams of methamphetamine and 1.9 litres of gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), which were delivered to his employer's business address and subsequently passed to him. He was also found in possession of 102 grams of cannabis.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Bell's role in the importation of significant quantities of methamphetamine and GBL, and the possession of cannabis. The legal issues included assessing the seriousness of the offences, the quantity of drugs involved, Bell's role in the importation chain, and his personal circumstances, including his remorse and efforts to rehabilitate. The court also considered the principle of denunciation and deterrence in drug-related offences, as well as the appropriate discount for a guilty plea.

The court considered the quantities of drugs involved and Bell's role in the importation, placing his offending at the lower end of band two in R v Fatu. Given the absence of aggravating features, the court accepted that Bell's role was that of a "catcher" at the bottom of the importation chain. While acknowledging Bell's remorse and efforts to overcome his methamphetamine addiction, the court made little allowance for personal factors due to the commercial scale of the offending. The court applied a five percent discount for personal factors and a 20 percent discount for a guilty plea, resulting in a total sentence of six years and ten months imprisonment for the importation offences, to run concurrently. Bell was convicted and discharged for the possession of cannabis.

The court concluded that the imposed sentence was the least restrictive it could impose under the Sentencing Act. Bell was sentenced to six years and ten months imprisonment for the importation of methamphetamine and GBL, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

Orders