R v Carroll - [2012] NZHC 1837

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-054-000454 [2012] NZHC 1837

QUEEN

v

STEPHANIE JANE CARROLL

Hearing: 20 July 2012
(Heard at Wellington)

Counsel: B D Vanderkolk for Crown
P H Surridge for Prisoner

Sentencing: 20 July 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF MILLER J

[1] Ms Carroll, you appear for sentence today on three charges, one of possessing methamphetamine for supply and two of actually supplying it.

[2] You were arrested following a police investigation known as Operation Stamp, which targeted the ‘Rebels’ motor cycle gang. Your former husband Herre Van Niekerken is a patched member of that gang, and it was through him that you became involved in distributing methamphetamine. Precursor materials were sourced from Auckland and manufactured into methamphetamine in Hamilton and Murupara, and ultimately distributed in the greater Manawatu, Wanganui and Horowhenua areas. This conspiracy subsisted for about six months from 1
September 2010, and it seems to have operated on a substantial scale.

R V CARROLL HC PMN CRI-2011-054-000454 [20 July 2012]

[3] The gang members, including Mr Van Niekerken, were responsible for sourcing the precursor material and arranging manufacture. One of them, Mr Matthews, took care to distance himself from actual possession of the drug, choosing to engage others for that purpose. You were used as a courier, to uplift methamphetamine from Hamilton and deliver it to Palmerston North, and you have admitted to dealing small quantities of the drug to local purchasers on two occasions.

[4] Turning to the specifics of your involvement, on 20 November 2010 you travelled to Hamilton to collect a quantity of methamphetamine, which you transported back to Palmerston North. Intercepted communications suggest that the quantity exceeded 400 grams. You were paid $7,500 for this.

[5] On 12 January 2011 you travelled to Hamilton again and uplifted approximately 402.1 grams of methamphetamine. You were arrested in possession of that quantity, the police having staged a traffic stop so that they could recover the methamphetamine without having to terminate their investigation.

[6] Four hundred grams of methamphetamine has a street value exceeding

$320,000 if sold in grams. When ESR analysed the methamphetamine which you had on arrest they found its purity was approximately 55 per cent.

[7] You admitted uplifting the methamphetamine on 12 January 2011, and further admitted the previous run.

[8] In November 2010 you bought a Mitsubishi Grandis car for $8,000. You were driving that vehicle when arrested. For that reason the Crown seeks forfeiture of the car. It also seeks forfeiture of $1,960 found in your possession on arrest and
$98,906.80 found at your house, a total of $100,866.80. You say that the $98,000 was secreted there by your former husband when he visited for access to the children, and I will accept that for present purposes. The Crown also seeks forfeiture of a Nissan car registration FQW484, which is not your car. You say, and I accept for present purposes, that that car and an Audi which is a subject of an application for…

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 Carroll

Details

AGLC: R v Carroll [2012] NZHC 1837
Case: [2012] NZHC 1837
Decision Date: 20 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Carroll, Stephanie Jane Carroll was sentenced on three charges: possessing methamphetamine for supply and two counts of actually supplying it. The case was heard by the High Court of New Zealand at Palmerston North. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Carroll, who was involved in the distribution of methamphetamine through her former husband, a member of the Rebels motorcycle gang. The court had to consider the nature and extent of her involvement in the drug supply chain, the quantity of drugs involved, and her personal circumstances, including her role as a caregiver for her seven children.

The legal issues the court addressed included the appropriate sentencing band for Carroll's involvement, the relevance of her role as a courier, and the impact of her personal circumstances on the sentence. The court found that while Carroll's involvement was significant, her role was less significant than other participants in the gang. The court also took into account her cooperation with the police, her remorse, and her personal hardships, which included being the sole caregiver for her children.

The court determined that Carroll's sentence should start at the bottom end of band three, which is eight years imprisonment. However, after considering mitigating factors such as her cooperation with the police, her remorse, and her personal circumstances, the court reduced the sentence to four years and three months imprisonment. The court also ordered the forfeiture of two vehicles and cash found in her possession and at her residence. The court did not impose a minimum non-parole period, finding that Carroll would be eligible for parole in the normal course.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of four years and three months imprisonment for Carroll, with orders for the forfeiture of the two vehicles and cash, and a restraining order in relation to an Audi vehicle. These orders were made in accordance with the joint memorandum of counsel.

Orders