R v Dickson - [2023] NZHC 1124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2021-070-001570

[2023] NZHC 1124

THE KING

v

JAMES BRADLEY DICKSON

Hearing: 11 May 2023

Appearances:

A Pollett for the Crown M Hine for the Defendant

Judgment:

11 May 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 May 2023 at 10.20 am Registrar/Deputy Registrar

R v DICKSON [2023] NZHC 1124 [11 May 2023]

[1] James Bradley Dickson, you appear before me today for sentencing following your plea of guilty to a charge of importing cocaine.1

[2] I will first set out the facts to which you have admitted as recorded in the summary of facts before the Court. I will sentence you based on this summary together with any inferences I can reliably draw from it. Then I will turn to the starting point of a prison sentence. Finally, I will address factors personal to you before setting out my conclusion as to an end sentence and why I reached that end sentence. As I have reached an end sentence of imprisonment of two years or less, I will then turn to the question of whether that sentence should be commuted to a community sentence.

[3] There is one preliminary matter. I picked up on my review of your criminal and traffic history that it currently records two convictions for importing cocaine. That is an error. The Crown accepts it is an error. It needs to be rectified; it is common ground that you pleaded guilty to one charge only and that is the offence you are being sentenced for here today. You are accordingly discharged under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 in respect of charge 2.2

[4]I turn now to the factual background.

The factual background

[5] The agreed summary of facts underpinning your guilty plea reveals that you became involved with a group of people whose objective was to acquire cocaine and methamphetamine imported into New Zealand from South America. You allowed one of those people to send a courier parcel to your home address. Cocaine was concealed inside. On delivery you took the parcel to that person.

[6] On 2 February 2021, the principal offender texted you to arrange a meeting to discuss the arrival of a second courier parcel. You told him that you had moved and no longer lived there. The same day New Zealand Customs intercepted a courier parcel

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a) with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. CRN:2100400476.
2 CRN:21004004795.

with your old address on it. Customs found concealed within the parcel a plastic bag containing approximately 300 grams of cocaine.

[7]The parcel was addressed to a “Haiden Smith”.

[8] On 3 February 2021, one of the principal offenders instructed an associate to tell you that the name would be “Haiden Smith” and to expect it to arrive the next day. That same day you texted a person next door to…

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 Dickson

Details

AGLC: R v Dickson [2023] NZHC 1124
Case: [2023] NZHC 1124
Decision Date: 11 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James Bradley Dickson appeared before the High Court of New Zealand in Tauranga for sentencing after pleading guilty to importing cocaine. The defendant admitted to receiving a parcel containing approximately 300 grams of cocaine, which was addressed to a pseudonym. The court acknowledged the defendant's role as a minor participant in the importation scheme and his decision to plead guilty. The legal issues centered on determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, adjusting for personal mitigating factors, and deciding whether the sentence should be imprisonment or home detention.

The court established a starting point of three years based on the quantity of cocaine and the defendant's lesser role, adjusting this downwards from the guidelines for methamphetamine offenders. The defendant received a 12% discount for his guilty plea and an additional 20% for personal mitigating factors, including his remorse, commitment to rehabilitation, and his role as a father. The court concluded that a sentence of 22 months imprisonment would be counterproductive, opting instead for 11 months of home detention to better facilitate rehabilitation. Conditions for home detention included abstaining from drugs and alcohol, participating in drug and counselling programs, and avoiding contact with co-defendants. The court emphasized the importance of this sentence as an opportunity for the defendant to change his life for the sake of his children.

Orders