R v Erikson

[2025] NZHC 2666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-009-7536

[2025] NZHC 2666

THE KING

v

MICHAEL JOSEPH AARON ERIKSON

Hearing:

12 September 2025

Appearances:

C R Stuart for Crown

M W Ryan for Defendant (via VMR)

Sentencing Notes:

12 September 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF EATON J

[1]                 Michael Erikson, you appear for sentence this morning having pleaded guilty to two representative charges of supplying methamphetamine,1 two charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply,2 one charge of kidnapping,3 and one charge of participating in an organised criminal group.4

Background

[2]                 You were arrested as part of a police operation into a multi-million-dollar methamphetamine and cocaine supply network, supplying drugs to Christchurch, that was being operated by the Tribesmen Motorcycle Gang (Tribesmen MC) between

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c), (2)(a) and 66; maximum penalty life imprisonment.

2      Sections 6(1)(f), (2)(a) and 66; maximum penalty life imprisonment.

3      Crimes Act 1961, ss 66 and 209(b); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

4      Section 98A; maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

R v ERIKSON [2025] NZHC 2666 [12 September 2025]

September 2021   and  October  2023.     The Police operation was code named Operation Italian Sky.

[3]                 The Police obtained surveillance device warrants that allowed them to intercept private communications and to covertly record locations of interest. The Police also executed multiple search warrants that revealed large quantities of cash and the seizure of multiple electronic devices.

[4]                 Ricky Poa is the National Vice President  of  the  Tribesmen  and  he  and nine co-defendants have now pleaded guilty to charges arising out of this operation and have been sentenced. Within that group is your younger brother, Jaxxon, and your mother, Sherryn Erikson.

[5]                 Mr Poa was the principal offender. He was the leader and, it is acknowledged, he was the main financial beneficiary of the drug dealing activity. He was primarily responsible for sourcing significant quantities of methamphetamine and cocaine from organised criminal groups in Auckland and elsewhere. Consistent with that role, he did not have the controlled drugs or cash in his physical possession. Instead, he arranged for trusted patched members and gang associates, including yourself, to manage the transportation of the drugs and the storage of the cash and drugs.

[6]                 You were, and as at today I understand still are, a patched member of the Tribesmen MC. The summary of facts tells me that you were Mr Poa’s most loyal and reliable associate. It records that you had, and I cannot quite tell whether you still have, his nickname, “Sarge”, tattooed on your face. You worked very closely with your brother, who was a prospect. He worked under your direction and influence. The summary of facts describes you both as soldiers or workers for Mr Poa.

[7]                 You have pleaded guilty to a representative charge of supplying methamphetamine for your involvement in what has been referred to as supply line one. That offending  took  place  over  the  period  from  January 2022  through  to 17 July 2023. During that time, and assisted by your brother, you organised a co-defendant, Jordan Rapana, to travel to Auckland and exchange cash for drugs. This was often actioned from your mother’s house. The communications organising

Mr Rapana primarily came from you. Mr Rapana would return to Christchurch and deliver wholesale quantities of methamphetamine to the address you shared with your brother. You and he would give Mr Rapana cash to take back for his next delivery. The two of you would then drive to different locations around Christchurch distributing the drugs to your network. You were benefitting financially from the role you played. You were responsible for determining how much Mr Rapana was compensated for his work.

[8]                 Mr Rapana was arrested on 18 July 2023 at Christchurch airport. He was found in possession of 1.971 kilograms of methamphetamine. Earlier that day, the Police had intercepted a conversation between your brother and Mr Poa where your brother asked for permission for both of you, that is you and your brother, to receive methamphetamine from Mr Rapana at the airport. You are charged with possession of methamphetamine for supply in relation to that seizure. Excluding that particular trip, Mr Rapana made another 20 deliveries of drugs to Christchurch.

[9]                 Following Mr Rapana’s arrest, you and your brother became involved in what has been described as supply line two. That was managed by  a  co-offender,  Andrew Smith. Supply line two typically utilised tow trucks and passenger ferries to transport drugs between Auckland and Christchurch. In relation to this supply line, you have pleaded guilty to a representative charge of supplying methamphetamine between 18 July and 2 October 2023, approximately a three-month period.

[10]              It was on the latter of those dates, 3 October 2023, that you contacted your mother, Sherryn, and discussed a quantity of methamphetamine that was to be delivered to her address. That conversation was recorded by the Police. Later that day, the Police searched Mr Rauhihi’s truck and located 1.987 kilograms of methamphetamine that he had uplifted from your mother. That search gives rise to your second charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.

[11]              The total agreed amount of methamphetamine involved in your admitted offending in relation to both supply lines is said to be between 22 and 32 kilograms.

[12]              You have also pleaded guilty to a charge of kidnapping. On 5 September 2023, you, your brother and another patched member of the gang, Dylan Stuart, were travelling in a vehicle in which the Police had installed a listening device. Your brother was the driver. The three of you were monitoring a home in Christchurch where a male who owed a drug debt to the Tribesmen MC resided. The female victim of the kidnapping lived with that person.

[13]              At 10.20 pm, the three of you observed the female occupant leave the house in a vehicle. As she drove past your vehicle, you followed her. Your vehicle pulled in front of her, and she was forced to stop a short distance from her address. It was made clear to the victim that she was not allowed to leave. She was then permitted to drop her child, who was with her, back at home. Then, as directed, she returned to your vehicle. Mr Stuart then taunted, threatened and abused the victim. She was told that she and the male owed $20,000 to the Tribesmen MC. Mr Stuart’s threats to bash her were recorded. You were present in the car throughout, although it is not alleged that you participated in the verbal threats. The kidnapping lasted about 12 minutes, before she was dropped back home.

[14]That summarises the facts upon which I must sentence you today.

Personal background

[15]              To understand your background, I have the benefit of a pre-sentence report, references, including a letter I received this morning from your partner, and a very lengthy letter that was handed to me shortly before I came into Court, from you. I have also got a detailed alcohol and drug (AOD) report that might more appropriately be described as a s 27 cultural report.

[16]              You are now 31 years old. You are Māori of Ngāti Kahu descent, born and raised in the Auckland area. You describe your very close relationship with your mother, grandparents, aunt, and siblings. You have one daughter and two sons, each of whom live with their mothers. You have been in a relationship with your current partner for four years.

[17]              The AOD report records that you were diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) in early childhood, being conditions that proved difficult to manage amid what is described as a violent and unstable home environment. The report records, and you tell me in your letter as well, that your father was emotionally and physically abusive and frequently absent. His impact on the family, and you particularly, are said to have left deep psychological wounds. Notwithstanding that, the reports tell me that you longed for your father and that your behaviour deteriorated when he was away from the family home.

[18]              You struggled at school as you became increasingly drawn to negative peer influences in your community. Your mother identifies, as a turning point in your path towards criminality, being when you moved from mainstream to alternative education—a move that was strongly recommended by the principal of the school you had been attending. In the alternative education setting you were surrounded by high-risk peers and your impulsivity and risk-taking became assets that earned you mana and a sense of belonging that you had long craved for but not experienced. Within that group as a 13-year-old, you were first introduced to methamphetamine and cannabis, and you began what then became an entrenched affiliation with gangs.

[19]              As a young person involved with an Auckland street gang, the report tells me you were easily manipulated by older members who supplied you with methamphetamine, fostering your dependency on that drug. You began stealing high performance cars for dismantling. You were rewarded with drugs. Your behaviour became too much for your mother to manage and at the age of 14 you went into State care.

[20]              I accept that in that environment you suffered abuse that I do not need to detail today. I am conscious, however, that with the assistance of lawyers, you are presently involved in bringing a claim against the Ministry of Social Development seeking redress for the events that occurred while you were in State care.

[21]              Not surprisingly, you were appearing regularly in the Youth Court, predominantly for stealing cars. That continued when you transitioned to the

District Court and in 2012, when you were 18 years old, you were sentenced to your first term of imprisonment. Within the adult prison, you affiliated with the Killer Beez gang. From there as you were in and out of prison, you continued to steal cars. You began more regularly committing burglaries. In 2013 you committed the first of what was to become a number of violent offences involving assaults and threats, culminating in a four-and-a-half-year jail sentence imposed for an aggravated robbery committed in September 2016.

[22]              A feature of your criminal history is that you have been sentenced to imprisonment for each and every one of the 46 subsequent offences for which you have been convicted.

[23]              The AOD report refers to how you became involved with the Tribesmen MC. Parts of that report appear to be in error because they do not sit comfortably with your letter. But you have confirmed that when you left the Killer Beez there was inevitable friction. You came to live in Christchurch with your then-partner and you began working out at a local boxing gym. It was at that gym where you met members of the Tribesmen MC gang and became friendly with them.

[24]              The report tells me that it was while you were in Christchurch and following the death of your grandfather that there was a resurgence in your self-destructive behaviours and your drug use escalated significantly. Your grandfather is described both in the report and in your letter as being an important person in your life—in fact the only consistent male in your life who showed you love and care.

[25]              You sought and developed a deeper connection with the Tribesmen MC. You developed a close bond with the local leader, Ricky Poa. You then became involved in the offending for which you are to be sentenced today.

[26]              The reports describe brief periods of abstinence from drugs while you have been in prison but otherwise tell me that your methamphetamine addiction has continued into adulthood and remained wholly untreated. Your addiction is described as severe, as having been entrenched since the age of 13 and inextricably entwined with your gang association. I know the Tribesmen MC have a no-methamphetamine

policy. Mr Stuart questions whether, when you began associating with the  Tribesmen MC, you started using cocaine to comply with that rule. It is not necessary that I make a definitive finding in that regard.

[27]              What the AOD report tells me is that you meet the criteria for severe methamphetamine stimulant and severe cocaine stimulant disorders. The report confirms the previous diagnosis that you had of ADHD. It also purports to make a provisional diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). I do not consider it appropriate for those who have contributed to the AOD report to be making diagnoses of conditions that ought to be made by an appropriately qualified person.

[28]              The pre-sentence report assesses you as presenting a high risk of offending based on your lifestyle, based on your loyalty towards the Tribesmen MC, the recidivist nature of your offending and your attitude toward authority. You were assessed as presenting a high risk of causing harm to others. It also tells me that you are frustrated and bored in prison. It records that you are feeling somewhat institutionalised and that your sole motivation now is to be a better parent to your daughter and to your two sons, and to be a better partner to the woman who has been very loyal to you.

Approach to sentencing

[29]              The Sentencing Act 2002 sets out the purposes and principles that I am required to take into account in sentencing you today. The relevant purposes include accountability, denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation. I must consider the gravity of your offending and your personal culpability. I must have regard to the general desirability of imposing a sentence that is consistent with the sentences I and other Judges have imposed on your co-offenders, and I must impose a sentence that is the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in all the circumstances.

[30]              The sentence I impose must accord with the guidelines for Class A drug dealing that have been provided by the senior appellate courts.5 Broadly, your culpability is

5      Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509; and Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3

NZLR 648.

to be assessed firstly by reference to the quantity of drugs involved and then by the role you played in this offending.6 From there, I will consider the various personal factors that might either aggravate or mitigate the offending to then arrive at an end sentence.

[31]              It is important to recognise, even though you are the last of the defendants arising out of this operation to be sentenced, the real harm that methamphetamine causes in our community. You will be very conscious of that, Mr Erikson, because I can understand that you see yourself as a victim of methamphetamine addiction. The distribution of methamphetamine has countless victims in the community, people who often experience the very worst outcomes. That includes adverse mental health, people committing criminal offences to feed their addictions. It leads to the breakdown of personal and employment relationships. It leads to social deprivation.7 There is no question our society as a whole suffers from methamphetamine and it is important to recognise those factors when it comes to imposing a sentence on persons who deal commercially in significant quantities of methamphetamine. It is offending that plays on the vulnerabilities of so many in our community.

Starting point

[32]              In Zhang v R the Court of Appeal recalibrated the quantum bands that guide the selection of a starting point for methamphetamine dealing.8 Quantity is an important measure of culpability or blameworthiness because it indicates the extent of commerciality associated with the dealing. It indicates the extent of the harm that has been caused to the community. Band five is for the most serious cases. It only applies when the quantities involved are more than two kilograms of the drug. Cases that fall within that band will generally be met by starting points that range from 10 years’ imprisonment   through   to   life   imprisonment.   Your   offending,   involving 22-32 kilograms of methamphetamine, falls comfortably within that band.

[33]As regards the second consideration, the Supreme Court in Berkland v R

provided an update as to the three role categories identified as “lesser”, “significant”

6      Zhang v R, above n 5, at [104], [106]–[117] and [126]–[127].

7      At [78]–[79].

8 At [125].

and “leading” that might apply.9 A starting point may be adjusted within the different bands in response to reduced or increased culpability reflecting the role that an offender has played in the offending.

[34]              There is no dispute you played what is called a “significant” role in this offending. That reflects your status as  a patched  member of the gang  and  one of Mr Poa’s most trusted lieutenants. You had both a management and operational function in the operation. You were directly involved in the receipt and onward supply of wholesale quantities of methamphetamine. You organised the storage and distribution of kilogram shipments. You organised your mother to facilitate the exchange of drugs and cash at her house in Auckland. You organised a cousin to transport drugs from Auckland to Christchurch. You oversaw the distribution of methamphetamine to street dealers, and you collected the proceeds. Being directly involved in both supply lines, I am satisfied you had a full awareness and understanding of the significant scale of this operation. But I accept you did not have the same autonomy or strategic decision  making  power or financial  prowess  of  Mr Poa. Overall, I assess your role as being towards the higher end of the significant category.

[35]              You are the last of the Operation Italian Sky defendants to be sentenced. In preparing your sentencing, I have reviewed the sentencing notes in relation to the others who have been sentenced.10

[36]              Both Mr Stuart and Mr Ryan agree that in relation to both the quantity of methamphetamine and your role, your offending is most factually analogous to that of Andrew Smith.    In   sentencing   Mr   Smith   I    adopted    a   starting   point   of  15 and a half years’ imprisonment. He admitted dealing in 25 kilograms of methamphetamine and five kilograms of cocaine. The starting point included a six-month deduction to recognise that his offending involved the slightly less culpable

9      Berkland v R, above n 5, at [126].

10 R v Stuart [2024] NZHC 3471; R v Smith [2025] NZHC 140; R v (Jaxxon) Erikson [2025] NZHC 187; R v Poa [2025] NZHC 694; R v Caffery [2025] NZHC 203; R v (Sherryn) Erikson [2025] NZHC 1252; R v Harpur [2025] NZHC 1144; R v Linton [2025] NZHC 126; R v Rapana [2025] NZHC 1705; and R v Rauhihi [2025] NZHC 713.

drug of cocaine. In settling on his starting point, I referred to a number of cases that I need not refer to this morning.11

[37]              I do not think it necessary or appropriate to distinguish between the amounts involved in your offending and that of Mr Smith. They were both broadly the same. But I am satisfied your offending was at least, if not more serious than that of       Mr Smith. Unlike him, you were involved in both supply lines. Your offending was over a 21-month period. His offending was over a five-month period. That, to my mind, is an important distinction.

[38]              Mr Ryan proposes a starting point for your offending of 15 and a half years’ imprisonment. Mr Stuart, for the Crown, submits a 16-year starting point is appropriate. For the reasons I have discussed, I adopt a starting point of 16 years.

[39]              As regards the kidnapping, again I am guided by the approach taken in the sentencing of both Mr Stuart and your brother, Jaxxon. Both were convicted of the same kidnapping offence. In sentencing Mr Stuart, Mander J observed that the kidnapping had involved multiple offenders, that it occurred in the wider context of organised criminal activity, there was a significant degree of premeditation, there were threats of violence that accompanied the detention.12 It was observed that there was no physical violence or the use of force. A starting point of two and a half years was adopted for Mr Stuart.

[40]              In sentencing your brother and recognising that unlike Mr Stuart, his lead offending was, like you, Class A drug dealing, I applied an uplift of nine months’ imprisonment to reflect the kidnapping.13 I considered that level of uplift to be at the lower end of the available range.

[41]              Both the Crown and Mr Ryan had agreed that I should take the same approach in sentencing you. In his oral submissions this morning however, Mr Ryan reflecting on the letter I have received described as a victim impact statement from the victim of the kidnapping, submits that I should reduce the uplift for the kidnapping to one of

11     R v Smith, above n 10, at [38].

12     R v Stuart [2024] NZHC 2461 (Sentencing Indication) at [10].

13     R v (Jaxxon) Erikson, above n 10, at [36].

three months’ imprisonment. I accept the victim’s perception of your role as that it involved very low culpability, in effect describing you as merely a bystander, however that does not accord with the evidence as outlined by Mr Stuart and based on the record which was an interception device that was within the vehicle. In my view, notwithstanding the view expressed by the victim, the uplift of nine months that I applied to your brother ought to be applied to you as well, and I do so.

[42]              That leads to a global starting point of 16 years and nine months’ imprisonment.

Aggravating personal factors

[43]              Mr Stuart submits that your prior convictions for violence justify an uplift of 10 per cent but acknowledges that uplift ought only be applied to the starting point that was adopted for the kidnapping. Mr Ryan submits that an uplift is not necessary.

[44]              I was minded to impose a modest uplift of around two months to reflect your history of violence but reflecting on the views expressed by the victim of that offending, and in particular her expressed admiration of you and position that had she not been a victim, she would have happily provided a character reference for you, I have had pause to reflect. It appears the two of you are friends. The drug debt was owed by someone with whom she associated. As I have discussed, she says you were not in charge or control of the events that unfolded. That was her perception. The Crown do not allege you were the principal or lead offender.   They  attribute to     Mr Stuart the threatening conduct that took place during the kidnapping. The victim says that when the three of you dropped her home, she could tell that you were genuinely sorry for what had happened.

[45]              It is unusual for the Court to receive a self-generated victim impact statement that offers support to the offender. As Mr Ryan submitted, what the victim’s position might otherwise have been captured in a restorative justice report had a conference been held. You were willing to participate in that conference. Through no fault of your own that did not occur.

[46]              I have decided that the most appropriate way to reflect the victim’s position is to accept that your role in the kidnapping does not bear a strong enough correlation to your prior history of violence to justify any uplift, so I will not apply any uplifts for your prior offending.

Personal mitigating factors

Guilty pleas

[47]              You are entitled to a credit for your guilty pleas. Other than your mother who was very much a lesser player in this offending, you were the last of the defendants charged to enter guilty pleas.

[48]              You first appeared on these charges on 1 November 2023. Your pleas were not entered until 21 February 2025. Ordinarily that would reduce the level of deduction to no more than around 15 per cent. Each of your co-defendants who pleaded guilty, received deductions of either 20 per cent or 25 per cent. They were all charged at the same time as you. Their pleas were predominantly entered in October and November last year.

[49]              Mr Stuart, for the Crown, accepts that you are still entitled to a discount of  20 per cent  for  your  guilty  pleas,  recognising  that  the  complexities  of  Operation Italian Sky and the fact that it has all been resolved comparatively swiftly, justify appropriate recognition. In those circumstances, I will allow the 20 per cent deduction that has been contended for by Mr Ryan. I do consider that to be a generous deduction, Mr Erikson. I work out that the extra five per cent that you will receive equates to almost a year of sentence.

Personal background factors

[50]              I then turn to personal background factors. As I say, they have been captured in the AOD report, the pre-sentence report and within the references I have read and in your letter that I have read this morning.14

14     Above at [15]–[28].

[51]              It is clear to me, Mr Erikson, that you have been shaped by your past and in particular the trauma and other challenges that you faced as a very young person. I agree that your childhood experiences set you on a path of disengagement from mainstream education, into State care, into criminal offending, into drug use which has led to drug addiction which in itself has led to gang association, and now very serious drug offending.

[52]              A sentence deduction is available if the Court is satisfied that there is a causal connection between an offender’s background and their offending.15  I agree with   Mr Ryan that a causal connection has been established and that a deduction is justified.

[53]              Mr Stuart does not suggest otherwise but suggests the deduction would need to reflect that you were involved in serious commercial Class A drug dealing, which of its nature, tends to disassociate the level of causal connection.

[54]              Mr Ryan submits a deduction of 20 per cent should be allowed for background factors. In support of that, he referred to the Court of Appeal decision in McCaslin-Whitehead v R16 where a deduction at that level was allowed for an offender with what I describe as a broadly similar background to you. In my view, comparing the level of deduction for personal background factors that have been allowed in other cases can provide only a very general guidance to a sentencing Judge. As an example, I  observe  that  McCaslin-Whitehead  was  a  Solicitor-General’s  appeal  and  the  20 per cent deduction reflected the conservative approach governing Crown appeals. In my view, a 20 per cent deduction as sought is too high.

Rehabilitation and remorse

[55]              Mr Ryan seeks a further deduction of up to 20 per cent to recognise your remorse and your rehabilitative steps and prospects.

[56]              The reports I have read reflect your expressions of remorse, as does your letter. It is clear that since your arrest you have had plenty of time to reflect. It is very clear also that you feel responsible that both your brother and mother were brought into this

15     Berkland v R, above n 5, at [16(c)] and [109].

16     McCaslin-Whitehead v R [2023] NZCA 259.

offending.   I also acknowledge that you were willing to participate in restorative justice with the victim of the kidnapping.

[57]              It is very clear you have a longstanding and heavily entrenched methamphetamine addiction that goes hand in hand with your criminal history. The AOD report tells me that you are motivated to make changes including engaging in appropriate rehabilitation and taking steps to extricate yourself from the gang. The supporting references including that of your partner, express confidence that with the right support and encouragement, you could make a positive contribution to society.

[58]              Your partner’s letter tells me that you are a loving, caring and supportive partner. It speaks about your unconditional love for your children that your partner has witnessed. You are very fortunate to have people standing by you in the circumstances that you face and regardless of your offending.

[59]              Your letter caused Mr Stuart, for the Crown, to reflect on the position the Crown takes as regards the genuineness of your expressions of remorse and your prospects of rehabilitation. I was not as doubtful as perhaps he was as regards your expressions of remorse, but conscious that the Court needs to exercise care when sentencing persons facing a lengthy term of imprisonment, who have a lengthy history of criminal offending and who express remorse and a willingness to rehabilitate.

[60]              But having read your letter and your acknowledgement that this is the first time ever you have, in your words, “opened up” to a Judge about your past and what your future looks like, I sense that you have used your time well and resolved to make significant changes in your life. Although you are very much at the early stages of rehabilitation, I think you do now make the connection between your past bad choices and your involvement with the gang. I think closely related to that is the realisation of the sense of loss and despair when you are facing long-term separation from your children, from your partner, from your whānau. I accept that you have used your time well in the prison, engaging with multiple programmes. You have had a negative drug test. These are positive signs that indicate your willingness to engage in rehabilitative programmes, and to turn a corner.

[61]              I consider it is appropriate to recognise that your remorse is genuine and that you do demonstrate prospects for rehabilitation. In my  view a  total  deduction of  30 per cent is appropriate to reflect the combination of personal mitigating factors above and beyond your guilty pleas.

Summary

[62]              Mr Erikson, that means a total deduction of 50 per cent from the starting point of 16 years and nine months’ imprisonment.

[63]              The Crown do not contend for, and I do not consider it necessary to impose, a minimum period of imprisonment. You will be eligible to be considered for early release on parole having served one-third of the sentence I impose. I hope that further incentivises you to continue the small steps you have taken to date towards your rehabilitation and, to adopt your words, to allow you to become a better father, son, and partner.

Result

[64]Can you please stand, Mr Erikson.

[65]Michael Erikson:

(a)On the two representative charges of supplying methamphetamine and the two charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply, you are sentenced to eight years and four months’ imprisonment.

(b)On the charge of kidnapping, you are sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment.

(c)On the charge of participation in an organised criminal group, you are sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.

[66]Each of those sentences will be served concurrently.

[67]You may stand down.

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

Eaton J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors, Christchurch

Counsel:
M W Ryan, Barrister, Auckland