R v Caffery - [2025] NZHC 203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-009-007536

[2025] NZHC 203

THE KING

v

CALEB ANTHONY PASIONE CAFFERY

Hearing: 14 February 2025

Appearances:

C R Stuart for Crown

D J Matthews for Defendant

Sentencing Notes:

14 February 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF EATON J

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

R v CAFFERY [2025] NZHC 203 [14 February 2025]

Introduction

[1] Caleb Caffery, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply1 and two charges of unlawful possession of ammunition.2

The offending

[2] Your offending arises from a police investigation code-named Operation Italian Sky. The operation identified members of the Tribesmen Motorcycle Gang operating a multi-million-dollar methamphetamine and cocaine supply network based in Christchurch between September 2021 and October 2023. Members of the gang involved in the supply network were sending large amounts of cash to Auckland and transporting large quantities of methamphetamine and cocaine to Christchurch on commercial flights or on tow-trucks.

[3] You have pleaded guilty to being a party to one of those supplies, a supply in July 2023. Jordan Rapana, a member of the Tribesmen gang, was involved in transporting methamphetamine from Auckland to Christchurch, often through the smaller regional airports where there was no luggage screening. On 18 July 2023, he was arrested at Christchurch airport after he arrived from Hamilton with 1.971 kilograms of methamphetamine. Mr Rapana’s phone was seized, and subsequent analysis established that the intended destination of that methamphetamine was your personal address. You had agreed to allow your address to be used, performing the role that is colloquially referred to in drug dealing networks as a ‘catcher’.

[4] During a search of your address on 28 July 2023, the police located 18 live shotgun cartridges and a Tribesmen jersey. On a further search of your address on 29 September 2023, police located another five shotgun rounds.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a); and Crimes Act 1961, s 66 — maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2 Arms Act 1981, s 45(1)(a) — maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment or $5000 fine.

Personal Circumstances

[5] Your personal circumstances are set out in a pre-sentence report and in an affidavit sworn by your mother. That report tells me you are 26 years old. You have no previous convictions.

[6] It records that at the time of your offending you were going through a difficult marriage separation. You were primarily caring for your three children, who were then aged two, four, and six years. You also reported that in the period leading up to your offending you were using cocaine and MDMA quite heavily and you were staying at a house that you described as a “party house”.

[7] You explained to the pre-sentence report writer that the separation from your wife took a significant toll on your mental health, and you…

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 Caffery

Details

AGLC: R v Caffery [2025] NZHC 203
Case: [2025] NZHC 203
Decision Date: 14 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, handed down its judgment in the case of The King v Caleb Anthony Passione Caffery, where the defendant was sentenced for possession of methamphetamine for supply and unlawful possession of ammunition. The defendant had pleaded guilty to being part of a methamphetamine supply operation run by the Tribesmen Motorcycle Gang. He acted as a 'catcher', allowing his address to be used for the distribution of drugs. The police discovered ammunition at his residence during a search.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the defendant's personal circumstances, the seriousness of the offence, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court considered the defendant's role in the supply network, his background, his remorse, and the impact of his potential incarceration on his children. The court also took into account the defendant's time spent on electronically monitored bail.

The court assessed the defendant's culpability and determined that his role in the drug supply operation was lesser, placing his offending in band two of Zhang, which attracts a sentence of two- to nine-years' imprisonment. The court decided on a starting point of four years and six months' imprisonment for the methamphetamine charge. The court did not impose an uplift for the ammunition charge but ordered the destruction of the cartridges. The court applied deductions for the defendant's guilty plea, his relative youth, his background, rehabilitative prospects, and previous good character. The court also considered the impact of the defendant's potential incarceration on his children.

Considering all these factors, the court imposed a sentence of 10 months' home detention for the methamphetamine charge and one month home detention for the ammunition charges, both to run concurrently. The court also imposed post-detention conditions for a period of six months. The sentence reflects the seriousness of the defendant's offending while also encouraging his rehabilitation and providing a deterrence against future offending.

Orders