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 delivered to that address. Your role there, Mr Chand, was to unpack the pallets and recruit others to assist. When police arrived you and three others had already begun to tear the plastic off the pallets, opening boxes and trying to open the bottles of maple syrup.

[11]   Once the police arrived, they located the eight pallets, two of which had been opened. They saw open boxes with bottles removed and a large blue tarpaulin placed beside the pallets with an assortment of tools spread out.

[12]You and the others were taken into custody.

[13]   On 8 February 2023, Police executed a search warrant at your home address in Otara. Inside your bedroom wardrobe, Police located two shoeboxes containing a total of 17 ziplock bags of white powder or crystals. In total there were:

(a)22.9 grams of methamphetamine with a purity of 80 per cent; and

(b)372.2 grams of cocaine with a purity of 49 per cent.

[14]   One of your associates, Mr Tuumaga, has been convicted and sentenced following a guilty plea. Three others, Mr Zhang, Mr Prasad and Mr Tini, were convicted following trial and await sentence. One of those, I believe with you at the Helensville delivery address, was acquitted.

Purposes of sentencing

[15]   I turn to the purposes of sentencing and the approach which the law requires me to take. I must assess what is called a starting point by reference to the aggravating and mitigating features of your offending. I take the possession of methamphetamine for supply as the most significant or lead charge before considering the smaller quantity of methamphetamine found in your bedroom and the cocaine.

[16]   Then I must consider your own personal mitigating and aggravating factors — that will result in that starting point being adjusted upwards or downwards.2 In setting the starting point, I rely on the guidance set out in the Court of Appeal decision of Zhang v R.3 These guidelines require me to place your offending within an appropriate band for the starting assessment. First, I need to look at the amount of methamphetamine at issue and then I must look at your role in the operation.

[17]   The reason why quantity is so important is that the amount of methamphetamine represents the harm to society. Your role in the operation determines your culpability. Identifying your role depends on characteristics which have also been refined by the decision of the Supreme Court in a case called Berkland v R.4

[18]   Before I turn to start point, I need to tell you why courts must send a strong message that there will be serious consequences for offending of this sort. I expect that deep down you know, but perhaps turned a blind eye, to the way methamphetamine destroys lives and families in New Zealand. It is a corrosive drug. It causes social and economic harm and misery that it is impossible to overestimate. It drives violent offending. It causes children to grow up in abusive, miserable and dysfunctional households. And it is the cause of young people, such as yourself, spending long periods imprisoned, isolated from family.

2      Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, [2020] 3 NZLR 583.

3      Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648.

4      Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509, at [71].

Starting point

[19]   It is obvious that the amount of methamphetamine involved in your case places your offending in the very highest range of the five available bands in the guideline case of Zhang. This band, known as band 5, applies when the quantum of drugs is above two kilograms. The amount at stake here is between 550 and 560 kilograms. That exceeds by a very considerable margin the entry point into band 5. The starting point for band 5 is a  minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment and the upper limit is    life imprisonment. The question for the Court is precisely where your offending sits within this band, which depends as I have said, on what role you played.

Crown position

[20]   The Crown says that there are aspects of your role which justify a starting point at the upper end of band 5. It says that a starting point of between 25 years’ imprisonment is warranted.

[21]   The Crown compares the sentencing of Mr Tuumaga, one of the other defendants in your case, who pleaded guilty. He was sentenced for importation and possession of methamphetamine for supply in relation to the same pallets which you were unpacking. But his role was different and his culpability greater and not just by virtue of the importation charge. The sentencing Judge determined that Mr Tuumaga had a “significant role as a trusted lieutenant in a very significant drug importation”. The starting point there adopted was 30 years’ imprisonment.

[22]   The Crown sees your role as a “lesser significant” role. It advances three reasons:

(a)You surveyed the address before the delivery therefore had the responsibility of carrying out reconnaissance. The fact you were trusted to receive the pallets suggests that those higher up in the drug syndicate chain placed a degree of trust in you.

(b)You also recruited Mr Prasad to assist with the unpacking, meaning that you were involved in recruiting, leading, directing and managing at least one other in the operation to ensure its success. It is reasonable to infer that you were going to be compensated for your role (which I note is broadly consistent with what you have told the pre-sentence report writer).

(c)It is also clear that you knew there was a significant commercial quantity of methamphetamine. Everything pointed to that — the size of the warehouse, the quantity and size of the pallets and the nature of the tools brought to unpack the pallets. There was also the number of people brought to the warehouse to carry out this job.

[23]   So, on that basis, the Crown says that your involvement while lesser than that of  Mr Tuumaga  —  meaning  that  the  starting  point  must  be   significantly  below 30 years — meant you still played a key operational role.

[24]   Instead, the Crown suggests your role is similar to that played by a Mr Kahlon and a Mr Te Hira in unrelated cases with the additional feature that you had a degree of oversight because you recruited at least one other and co-ordinated other defendants.5 Therefore, the Crown says that you have a higher level of culpability than Mr Kahlon.

5      R v Kahlon [2025] NZHC 350. Mr Kahlon was found guilty of possession of between 628 and741 kilograms of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply. The drugs were imported into New Zealand disguised as “Honey Bear” from Canada and kombucha from Los Angeles. Mr Kahlon acted under the direction of the arranger of the importations and helped extract the methamphetamine from the bottles and cans. On sentencing Mr Kahlon, the Judge was satisfied he was involved in all aspects of the extracting and processing and knew it was a large amount of methamphetamine. His role was characterized at the lower end of significant. The starting point was 26 years’ imprisonment. R v Thai & Te Hira [2021] NZHC 1006. Mr Thai pleaded guilty to two charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply of 469 and 26 kilograms respectively. Mr Te Hira pleaded guilty to one charge of importation of 469 kilograms of methamphetamine and one charge of possession for supply. The drugs were imported on a ship and declared as electric motors. The Court considered that Mr Thai had come to New Zealand for the sole purpose of engaging in major drug dealing and had a pivotal operational and management role. He engaged with the freight forwarder to arrange delivery and instructed Mr Te Hira in respect of the delivery and unpacking. A starting point of 30 years’ imprisonment was adopted for the possession of 469 kilograms. Mr Te Hira’s involvement was more opportunistic. He took instructions from Mr Thai, was present when the drugs were delivered to the rural address and assisted with unloading them. Despite the agreed remuneration ($50,000) which signaled that a large amount of drugs were involved, Mr Te Hira was not himself aware of the scale of the consignment. A starting point of 29 years’ imprisonment was considered appropriate.

[25]   Mr Kahlon was found guilty of possession of between 628 to 741 kilograms for supply. The methamphetamine was imported disguised as cans of Honey Bear and kombucha. He acted under the direction of the arranger of the importations and was involved in all aspects of extraction and processing of methamphetamine. The sentencing judge found his role was at the lower end of significant with a starting point of 26 years.

[26]   Mr Te Hira, in another importation case, was characterised as more of an opportunistic offender who took instructions from a foreign national. He was present when methamphetamine arrived at a rural address and he assisted with unloading it. He was not aware of the amount of drugs in question but was paid $50,000 for his involvement. The quantity was 469 kilograms and the charges were both importation and possession. The starting point in that case was 29 years’ imprisonment.

[27]   Ms Taylor-Cyphers on your behalf, says the Crown starting point is too high and that a starting point in the range of 24 to 25 years’ imprisonment is available. She refers to other comparator cases in terms of classifying your role.6

[28]   I acknowledge that a completely accurate assessment of your role is not straightforward. However, I must determine the appropriate sentence considering the established facts in the agreed summary of facts. I am permitted to draw inferences from the summary but not entitled to speculate or go further than the agreed summary.

[29]   I consider the material factors to be that there were others above you in the hierarchy, including Mr Tuumaga. You were not at the top, nor even second in command. You had an operational function of sorts, recruited at least one other and therefore had some co-ordination responsibility as a “lead catcher”. I do not accept that the fact that this operation was orchestrated by an overseas criminal group with

6      R v Navarro [2021] NZHC 593. Mr Navarro set up storage facilities for methamphetamine before it arrived and arranged for the tinting of windows at another premises. He also assisted another offender to move the controlled drug and extracted it from the concealed containers. Starting point of 21 years in respect of 109.6 kilograms. R v Martos [2021] NZHC 789. Mr Martos unloaded a consignment of methamphetamine imported in polystyrene boxes (with false bottom compartments) into a truck, stored it at storage unit and removed the drug from the boxes. Start point of 23 years and six months in respect of 100 kilograms. R v Wilkinson [2021] NZHC 185. Mr Wilkinson safeguarded a quantity of methamphetamine stored in cardboard boxes in the apartment where he was staying and made delivery of one of the boxes. Start point of 22 years in respect of 193 kilograms.

some sophistication means that your role in it should be seen as sophisticated. Nor is it correct to see your role as managerial merely by dint of recruiting another person. Rather, I see your role as more of an operational soldier, doing what you are told.

[30]   I do not discern any influence on those above you in the chain. Cases in which defendants travelled overseas, prepared boats to rendezvous off the coast, arranged the storage facilities, provided encrypted devices and made payments to other participants involved more significant roles than yours.

[31]   I am confident, as I have said, that you anticipated financial gain — you referred in your pre-sentence interview to “easy money”— but there is no evidence of the level of compensation nor a lavish lifestyle.

[32]   I infer that you had enough idea of the scale to know that a significant commercial quantity was involved but would not likely know any more precisely than that given the concealment was not in every bottle. I regard the drawing of at least one other person into the scheme as increasing your culpability. I accept that one of the motivations for involvement was to feed your own cocaine habit.

[33]   I have had regard to those factors, comparative cases, and the sentence of your co-defendant, for reasons of parity. Having done so, I accept the approach of your lawyer and assess your role between lesser and significant. I pause to note that the Crown did not place much significance on the difference in the way it was expressed in their submissions. I pause to note too, that I will footnote those comparator cases in the written note of my sentencing for the benefit of counsel.

[34]   I consider that your offending attracts a lesser starting point than in Kahlon. I adopt a starting point of 24 years’ imprisonment for the lead methamphetamine offending.

Uplift for additional offending

[35]   I am now required to adjust the starting point to account for your additional offending in respect of the drugs found in your home — that is, possession

of the cocaine and further methamphetamine. Again, applying the guideline in the lead case of Zhang, the cocaine offending on a standalone basis would be placed in the upper end of band 2 with a starting point between six and 12 years’ imprisonment.

[36]   I must however have regard to the principle of totality which means that I must ensure that the overall starting point should not be wholly out of proportion to the gravity of your overall offending. In other words, it is not a matter of just stacking sentences on top of each other. I accept that the principled approach is to have regard to totality before adjustments or uplifts for personal factors.

[37]   The Crown submits that an uplift of between six to 12 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for this additional offending and does not offend the totality principle. Your lawyer properly does not challenge this. I accept that an uplift of 12 months’ imprisonment is justified.

[38]   This would lead to an adjusted global starting point of 25 years but for a second totality factor.

Further totality consideration

[39]   You have a previous conviction for possession of 84 grams of cocaine for supply for offending that occurred in August 2021, about 18 months before the current offending. You were sentenced on 29 May 2024, to 25 months’ imprisonment at the Christchurch High Court. The following day, 30 May 2024, you were sentenced in the Manukau District Court to four months’ imprisonment for one charge of threatening to kill/do grievous bodily harm. Those sentences are being served concurrently.

[40]   The Crown responsibly points out that, had all your drug offending been sentenced together, the Christchurch offending would have accounted for by an uplift as it was lesser offending. The Crown suggests that the totality principle may justify a deduction of 12 months’ imprisonment from the adjusted global starting point and an end sentence cumulative to your current sentence.

[41]   I accept the Crown submission, including that this sentence I am going to oppose on you today is a cumulative sentence, in part because you were on bail for the Christchurch offending when you embarked on the present wrongdoing.

[42]What this means is that the adjusted global starting point falls back to 24 years.

[43]   The Crown does not seek an uplift for the Christchurch offending given that you are presently serving a sentence for those convictions.

Consideration of personal circumstances and mitigating factors

[44]I come now to the second stage of the sentencing process.

[45]   The Supreme Court in Berkland recognised that an offender’s background (such as addiction and social, economic and cultural deprivation) can mitigate a sentence where it made a causative contribution to the offending.7 I intend to reduce your sentence in the following ways to recognise your personal circumstances and other mitigating factors.

Guilty plea

[46]   You were charged in  February  2023.  Full  disclosure  was  provided  by July 2024 and your guilty pleas were entered on 28 May 2025. This is approximately two and a half weeks before your trial. The Crown points out there were no changes to the charges and only minor amendments to the summary of facts to clarify your role in the offending.

[47]    The Crown suggests you may be entitled  to  an  allowance  of  no  more  than 15 per cent for your guilty pleas. Your counsel agrees that this is appropriate. I accept that indication although I consider that it is arguably generous giving the timing of your guilty plea.

7      Berkland v R, above n 4, at [108]–[112].

Other personal mitigating factors

[48]   You are nearly 26 years old. At the time of your offending you might still be considered relatively young but a youth discount is not available. You have a limited criminal history.

[49]   Among the materials before me is a s 27 report prepared by Mana Utu Limited. It provides a snapshot of your background, your early life and your personal situation. The pre-sentence report also provides useful insights. I draw the following information from that material.

[50]   The pre-sentence report writer relays that you were unemployed at the time of offending, having relationship issues and using cocaine on a daily basis. You say you were in a difficult relationship at the time of offending with your partner putting pressure on you to provide more “financially”.

[51]   You attribute your drug use to being part of the “car scene” as you say “drugs went hand in hand” with that environment and you had been introduced to illicit substances during a period of incessant partying. You have acknowledged that your drug use has ruined your life and “drugs turn people into monsters”. You acknowledge too that you have left your family broken by this offending.

[52]   You identify as Samoan and Fijian Indian. You have spoken of hardship in your childhood after your father left and that you and your mother lived in a budget motel for several years. Your lawyer describes your upbringing as one marred by scarcity.

[53]   You have spoken of a lack of belonging at school because of your mixed ethnicity which made schooling difficult. You were forced to leave school at 16. This, suggests your lawyer, is one of the reasons why you are more vulnerable to antisocial influences prevalent in the “car scene” and which was the conduit, the pipeline, to this offending.

[54]   You have described having a difficult relationship with your mother’s new partner which led you to avoid home in your teenage years, staying with friends and staying out.

[55]   The courts recognise that where addiction has played a causal role in someone’s offending, it is a mitigating factor. Reduction for this factor is not necessarily precluded by involvement in large scale drug offending as in your case but must be tempered by that fact.

[56]   I accept, as did the sentencing Judge in the Christchurch offending, that there is some causative link between your drug habit, lifestyle and offending. I do not accept that your offending was primarily motivated by addiction but was in a small part attributable to your drug dependency. The fact that your drug use is self-reported, is not a bar to it being taken into account.8 I also note there is the report of a registered addiction and problem gambling practitioner who describes you as exhibiting a severe substance disorder. You say that you first used cannabis at age 13 after your parents separated and describe using methamphetamine at around 12 years of age. Experimentation with cocaine apparently began at 17 years of age.

[57]   You appear to have good prospects of rehabilitation. While in prison you have completed the 55 session Mauri Tu Pae programme. The providers have prepared a final report including a “safety plan” as part of completion of the programme. There are many positive comments from the facilitators that speak to your attributes and capacity for rehabilitation and your motivation to rehabilitate.

[58]   You also appear to have insight into the impacts of your offending on your family and the wider community and have expressed remorse.

[59]   Your lawyer submits that the causal factors set out in these reports justify an allowance of 15 per cent and a discrete discount of 5 per cent.

[60]   To receive a reduction for remorse does not require something extraordinary but it does require something more than the simple acceptance of responsibility

8      Mau v R [2021] NZCA 106 at [29]–[34].

inherent in a guilty plea. I consider your rehabilitation efforts to be exemplary and deserving of a discrete 5 per cent deduction and an allowance of 10 per cent for background factors is available.

Final sentence

[61]   From the total starting point of 24 years, I apply total allowances or reductions of 30 per cent. That produces an end sentence of 16 years and nine months (rounded down).

[62]To be clear, this sentence is on top of the sentence you are already serving.

Minimum period of imprisonment not warranted

[63]   The Crown does not submit that a minimum period of imprisonment is appropriate in your case for reasons of parity with earlier sentencing. I agree that the principles of accountability and denunciation and community protection do not require any minimum period of imprisonment. I consider that this very lengthy sentence itself meets the purposes of deterrence, denunciation and accountability given your non-parole period. Having reviewed whether those principles are sufficiently met, I agree no MPI is necessary or warranted.

Result

[64]I will ask you to stand please, Mr Chand.

[65]   You are sentenced to 16 years and nine months’ imprisonment for the charges to which you have pleaded guilty.

[66]You may now stand down.

............................................................

Walker J