R v Chand - [2025] NZHC 2231

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-004-001080

[2025] NZHC 2231

THE KING

v

PATRICK CHAND

Hearing: 8 August 2025

Appearances:

K Nihill and E Cato for the Crown M Taylor-Cyphers for the Defendant

Judgment:

8 August 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 08 August 2025 at 9.10 am Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor Auckland M Taylor-Cyphers, Barrister, Auckland

R v CHAND [2025] NZHC 2231 [8 August 2025]

[1] Patrick Chand, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a total of three charges — being two charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply and one of possession of cocaine for supply.1 The maximum penalty for the charges is life imprisonment.

[2] You have pleaded guilty based on a summary of facts which you agree accurately sets out the essential facts of your offending.

[3] In carrying out this sentence, I have had regard to written submissions from Crown counsel and from your counsel, along with materials and information filed by your counsel about your background. I have also had regard to the oral submissions made by counsel today.

[4] I will begin my sentencing by describing your offending because you and the community must know the basis of and reasons for the sentence I will impose on you.

The offending

[5] Your charges arose from a joint Police and Customs investigation codenamed Operation Regis. The investigation was into the importation of methamphetamine into New Zealand.

[6] On 14 January 2023, a consignment of 18 pallets of Prestige brand maple syrup arrived at the Ports of Auckland from Canada. On inspection, the consignment was found to conceal methamphetamine within a number of the maple syrup bottles. Each pallet contained 36 boxes or cartons, stacked in rows. Each box generally contained four litre bottles of the labelled maple syrup. Eight of the pallets were found to contain concealments of one kilogram of methamphetamine in all or most of the bottles on each pallet. The concealment was rudimentary.

[7] The combined weight of the methamphetamine seized is approximately 713.8 kilograms. This is a very significant quantity which, but for the intervention by the authorities, would have caused enormous harm.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f).

[8] The consignment was addressed to a company in Auckland. That company instructed the brokers to split the consignment and deliver it to two named individuals, one of whom asked that his pallets be delivered to an address in Helensville.

[9] You visited the delivery premises a day before delivery to the Helensville address to carry out reconnaissance. You recruited Mr Prasad on the same day. On the morning of the delivery, 8 February 2023, you and Mr Prasad met at your address and loaded up a van with tools before collecting two more associates, Mr Tini and Mr Talati, and travelling to the delivery address.

[10] Approximately 550 to 560 kilograms of methamphetamine were…

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 Chand

Details

AGLC: R v Chand [2025] NZHC 2231
Case: [2025] NZHC 2231
Decision Date: 8 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant, Patrick Chand, pleaded guilty to charges of possession of methamphetamine and cocaine for supply. The maximum penalty for these charges was life imprisonment. The court considered the defendant's role in the importation of approximately 713.8 kilograms of methamphetamine concealed within a shipment of maple syrup. The court also considered the defendant's involvement in recruiting an associate to assist in the unpacking of the shipment and his possession of a smaller quantity of drugs at his home. The Crown argued for a starting point at the upper end of band 5, which ranges from a minimum of 10 years to life imprisonment, due to the significant quantity of drugs and the defendant's role in the operation. The defence argued for a lesser starting point, citing the defendant's role as an operational soldier rather than a significant figure in the drug syndicate. The court found the defendant's role to be between lesser and significant, resulting in a starting point of 24 years' imprisonment. The court adjusted the starting point upwards by 12 months for the additional offending and downwards by 30% for mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea, background factors, and prospects for rehabilitation. The defendant was sentenced to 16 years and nine months' imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the sentence he was already serving.

The court did not consider a minimum period of imprisonment to be necessary or warranted in this case. The lengthy sentence itself met the purposes of deterrence, denunciation, and accountability. The defendant was sentenced to 16 years and nine months' imprisonment for the charges to which he had pleaded guilty. The court emphasized the seriousness of the defendant's offending and the need to send a strong message about the consequences of drug supply. The court also recognized the defendant's background factors and mitigating circumstances, such as his drug addiction and prospects for rehabilitation, in determining the sentence. The court considered the principle of totality in adjusting the starting point for the defendant's additional offending and previous convictions. The court aimed to ensure that the overall sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the defendant's offending.

Orders