R v Dixon - [2017] NZHC 920

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-009-5968 [2017] NZHC 920

THE QUEEN

v

LEE DIXON

Hearing: 9 May 2017

Appearances:

N A Pointer for the Crown
M Starling for Mr Dixon

Sentencing:

9 May 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J

Sentence today

[1] Please remain seated Mr Dixon. You appear for sentences on these charges:

·a single representative charge of importing a Class A drug, namely cocaine; and

· four charges of supply and one charge of offering to supply a Class A

drug, namely cocaine.

For each, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.1

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and (2)(a), Crimes Act 1961, s 66.

R v DIXON [2017] NZHC 920 [9 May 2017]

[2] You also appear for sentencing on a minor charge of failing to provide a password to a police officer exercising a power to search, for which the maximum sentence is three months imprisonment.2

[3] I will outline the facts, identify relevant sentencing purposes and principles and then assess the appropriate starting point in the sentencing process, taking into account any aggravating or mitigating factors and the seriousness of the offending as a whole. I will address aggravating and mitigating factors particular to you, to adjust that starting point. Finally, I consider the imposition of a Minimum Period of Imprisonment (MPI).

The Facts

[4] Although you pleaded guilty to these charges, you contested large parts of the relevant facts, and central to that contest was the quantity of cocaine you imported.

[5] A disputed facts hearing was conducted before me and judgment delivered on

21 February 2017.3 The facts of the offending were traversed in detail in the course of that judgment. I found it to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you imported not less than six kilograms of cocaine, although the Crown alleged far more than that. Through counsel, you maintain that you were not involved in importation of cocaine in this amount, but that judgment is the basis on which you must be sentenced today.

[6] The Crown case was based on your sending USD$109,797 out of New Zealand to pay for cocaine purchased in Colombia and imported within the date range particularised in the charge. Currency transactions to remit US Dollars overseas took place between 20 January 2015 and 23 April 2015, mostly through Western Union, but you also handed USD$70,000 to a Special Duties Undercover
Constable in Hagley Park in March 2015 for remittance offshore.

2 Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 178.
3 R v Dixon [2017] NZHC 210.

[7] The Crown case was based in substantial part on these currency transactions, and it relied on the expert evidence of a DEA (or Drug Enforcement Administration) Special Agent from the Tokyo Office. That agent gave evidence in this Court.

[8] No drugs were found to which the importation charge relates. You admit you did import cocaine but only to the extent reflected in the small supply charges, less than 100 grams…

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 Dixon

Details

AGLC: R v Dixon [2017] NZHC 920
Case: [2017] NZHC 920
Decision Date: 9 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dixon, the defendant, Lee Dixon, was convicted of importing a Class A drug, namely cocaine, and various charges of supply and offering to supply the same drug. The dispute centered on the quantity of cocaine imported and the extent of Dixon's involvement in the drug trade. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Dixon's offenses.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate starting point for sentencing, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the imposition of a Minimum Period of Imprisonment (MPI). The court had to consider the nature and seriousness of the offending, the defendant's criminal history, and the impact of the offending on the community.

The court found that Dixon's involvement in the importation of cocaine was significant, with a minimum of six kilograms imported. The court rejected Dixon's claim that he was not involved in the importation of cocaine to the extent found by the court. The court found that the defendant's offending was casual and simple, facilitated by his prior contacts in South America. The ease with which Dixon engaged in drug importation and dealing, and his failure to use a more secure method of communication, were considered aggravating factors.

The court found mitigating factors in Dixon's guilty pleas, although entered at a late stage, and his acknowledgment of the negative effects of drug dependency. The court also took into account Dixon's limited criminal history, lack of violence-related charges, and his potential for harm to others being low.

Considering the purposes and principles of sentencing, the court determined that a starting point of 17 years imprisonment was appropriate, reflecting the seriousness of the offending. The court imposed a discount of 15% for Dixon's guilty pleas, resulting in an end sentence of 14 years and 6 months imprisonment. The court also imposed an MPI of 7 years, to ensure the offender is held accountable for the harm caused and to deter others from engaging in similar activity.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Dixon to 14 years and 6 months imprisonment for the importation charge, 3 years imprisonment for the supply and offering to supply charges (to be served concurrently), and 1 month imprisonment for the charge of failing to provide a password. An MPI of 7 years was imposed, and an order was made for the destruction of cell phones, scales, containers, and the forfeiture of USD$10,000, pending the final disposition of the prosecution and any appeal.

Orders