R v Erikson

[2025] NZHC 1252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-009-007536 [2025] NZHC 1252

THE KING

v

SHERRYN ELIZABETH ERIKSON

Hearing:                   20 May 2025 Appearances:        W F Taffs for Crown

M J Taylor-Cyphers for Defendant

Judgment:                20 May 2025

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PRESTON J

R v ERIKSON [2025] NZHC 1252 [20 May 2025]

[1]                 Sherryn Erikson you appear for sentence today at the age of 52 having pleaded guilty to a representative charge of permitting premises to be used for supplying class A drugs1.

[2]                 As I am  sure you are  aware, that offence  carries a maximum  penalty of    10 years’ imprisonment.

[3]                 Your offending came to light as a result of a police investigation called Operation Italian Sky. That investigation uncovered a multi-million-dollar methamphetamine and cocaine supply network based in Christchurch which was operated by the Tribesmen Motorcycle Gang (Tribesmen MC) between September 2021 and October 2023.

[4]                 Members of the gang involved in the supply network arranged for the delivery of cash to Auckland and the return transportation of kilogram quantities of methamphetamine and cocaine from Auckland to Christchurch. The drugs were carried on commercial airline flights, or by road and passenger ferries.

[5]                 One of the people involved in this operation was Jordan Rapana, your nephew. Mr Rapana was responsible for collecting the drugs in Auckland and bringing them to Christchurch by road or on commercial flights. He would return to Auckland with large quantities of cash to pay for subsequent shipments.

[6]                 Another person involved as a courier was Tramayne Rauhihi. Mr Rauhihi was also responsible for delivery of cash within that cycle up to Auckland and he would return to Christchurch with methamphetamine and cocaine, completing those deliveries using tow trucks associated with the business of another co-defendant, Blake Harpur.

[7]                 Your two sons, Michael Erikson and Jaxxon Erikson were also involved in the drug supply network.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 12(1) and (2)(a): maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

[8]                 They were responsible for managing the receipt of the drugs from Mr Rapana in Christchurch and organising the onward sale and distribution of methamphetamine and cocaine. Your eldest son, Michael, was very closely connected with the prime mover and principal offender of this methamphetamine and cocaine supply network, Ricky Poa. Mr Poa was the leader and the main financial beneficiary of the drug dealing activity.

[9]                 You were throughout this time living in Auckland. At the behest of your sons Michael and Jaxxon and your nephew Mr Rapana you allowed your home to be used on multiple occasions by Messrs Rapana, Rauhihi and Harpur as a drop off and collection point, for the exchange of cash for wholesale quantities of methamphetamine and cocaine.

[10]             You were paid for your involvement, either in cash or by electronic transfer to your bank account.

[11]Police established a number of payments made to you:

(a)On 31 March 2022 your son Jaxxon paid $1,350 by electronic transfer to you. This followed a delivery on 28 March 2022.

(b)A year or so later, on 28 February 2023 your son Michael paid you

$1,250 by electronic transfer, following a delivery on 21 February 2023.

Over the next five months, you received four further payments:

(c)On 8 March 2023 an associate of Mr Rapana transferred $600 to your account. There had been a delivery on 5 March 2023.

(d)On 10 April 2023 Jaxxon made a further payment of $1,000 by electronic transfer to you, following a delivery on 6 April that year.

(e)On 25  June  2023  you  received  a  cash  payment  of  $800  from  Mr Rapana. Messaging from Mr Rapana showed he himself was being

paid $2,500 and you the $800 for your respective involvement in a delivery that same day.

(f)On 18 July 2023 your son Michael transferred $850 to your account. On that day, police intercepted a delivery at Christchurch Airport which contained 1.971 kgs of methamphetamine, leading to  the arrest  of  Mr Rapana.

[12]In total across that 15-month period you received $5,850 in payments.

[13]             Some indication of the scale of transactions that were occurring through your address is also given by other events noted in the summary of facts, occurring after this time.

[14]             On 8 August 2023, Michael Erikson told Mr Harpur that he, Michael needed a sum of $15,000 taken to your address. Later, Michael directed Mr Harpur to collect methamphetamine and cocaine from your address, which he did.

[15]             On 3 October that year, messaging from your eldest son shows the two of you discussed that a quantity of methamphetamine would be delivered to your address that day. Michael was directing you in relation to something being dropped off and you needed to put those two things together and put them somewhere safe “until I have got someone”. At this time, Mr Poa was in custody. Michael also told you in a message to delete all of your conversations and stop ringing and calling people, telling you you were going to put all of you in jail. That day, Mr Rauhihi was directed to collect methamphetamine from your address, and did so, collecting 1.987 kgs of methamphetamine in a black shopping bag. That package was intercepted by police later that day.

[16]             As will be apparent from that summary and I accept, your involvement by allowing your premises to be used in this way was driven by the influence of your family members, particularly your sons.

Sentencing Act 2002

[17]             In sentencing you I have regard to the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act).

[18]             This Court has to date handed down a range of sentences imposed on members of the Tribesmen network involved in varying degrees in the organised enterprise.

[19]             These sentences reflect that issues of deterrence and denunciation are to the fore in any case involving methamphetamine offending. Especially where, as here, there was a very significant criminal enterprise to peddle that pernicious drug and the class A drug cocaine into the community for profit.

[20]             There is a clear need also for deterrence and denunciation of persons who assist that process by permitting premises to be used, and the purposes of accountability and also rehabilitation are relevant in today’s sentencing.

[21]             I need to take into account the gravity of your offending, and you have heard discussion from the bar in oral submissions this morning about the competing views about that, and the general desirability of consistency in imposing sentences for like offending. I must impose the least restrictive sentence which is appropriate in the circumstances.

Starting point

[22]             In essence the sentencing exercise requires me to deal with two principal matters. I need to fix the appropriate starting point first. I then need to apply all relevant matters which relate to your personal factors and how they affect the appropriate ultimate sentence in this case.

[23]             I start by speaking about the starting point. There is no tariff decision for allowing premises to be used for supplying class A drugs.

[24]             Mr Stuart for the Crown has helpfully referred me to a range of cases which Ms Taylor-Cyphers on your behalf accepts are relevant. And as your counsel records, there can be widely varying circumstances in which this sort of offence is committed. I accept, as counsel agree, the run of cases indicates the courts generally adopt a sterner approach where premises have been permitted to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine by comparison with the use to facilitate the supply of that drug.2

[25]             The three cases of R v Ward, R v Levet and Dodsworth v R are the most analogous examples: 3

(a)In Ward, the defendant allowed commercial premises to be used for the supply of methamphetamine by members and associates of the Black Power gang. The amounts involved were small although the exact amounts were unknown. There was no motive to make a profit. The Court there considered that permitting premises for the supply of methamphetamine was less serious than permitting premises for the purpose of manufacture. A starting point of 18 months was adopted in that case.

(b)In Levet, the defendant, Ms Levet, allowed her husband to use the family home for the supply of methamphetamine and cannabis. Some offending continued after the principal offender was on bail. The total quantities were unknown, however 774 g of cannabis and 38.9 g of methamphetamine (which was valued at that time at around $38,000), and over $37,000 cash was located at the property.4 Justice Lang observed that a starting point of two years’ imprisonment is common where premises are allowed to be used for the purposes of methamphetamine manufacture and he considered a slightly lower

2      See for example R v Lorigan HC Auckland CRI-2010-404-1742, 29 November 2011 where a starting point of two years, six months’ imprisonment was adopted; in R v Oldeman [2013] NZHC 1709, a starting point of three years’ imprisonment was adopted; and in R v Julian [2018] NZHC 3165, a starting point of two years and six months’ imprisonment was adopted.

3      R v Ward [2015] NZHC 505; R v Levet Hamilton CRI-2007-019-010276, 15 October 2009;

Dodsworth v R [2025] NZHC 516.

4      Across two searches in September and December 2007; $12,000 in cash in various locations was also found on the first search when the cannabis was located, as well as seven immature cannabis plants.

starting point may be appropriate where premises are used only for dealing. The Court there considered that a starting point in the range of 18 to 20 months would ordinarily be adopted, but that was increased to 23 months to account for allowing the principal offender to continue to offend while on bail. Between that period as Ms Taylor-Cyphers has referred of the few months after September before December the second raid.

(c)In Dodsworth, the appellant, Ms Dodsworth, allowed her home to be used as a venue for commercial drug dealing over a period of five and a half months. Ms Dodsworth was fully aware of what was happening and was described as being more than a passive bystander. She operated as a point of contact for the associates and relayed information to them. The Court noted that a starting point between two years and two years six months’ imprisonment would have been unobjectionable.

[26]             On the basis of Ward and Levet Ms Taylor-Cyphers invites a starting point in the range of 18 months’ imprisonment, that is, half of that sought by the Crown.

[27]             She submits, as you have heard, your offending falls rather in the 18-21 month starting point range identified in Levet. Primarily this on the basis that the transfers of money from your sons, your co-defendants, were entirely out of all proportion with the risk you assumed and, additionally, it is suggested there is a likelihood that some transfers at least were in respect of household matters and costs.

[28]             Ms Taylor-Cyphers contends that given your son Michael’s significant involvement in the offending, and the involvement of Jaxxon and your other family member Mr Rapana, yours was a more passive acceptance of the use of your home for unlawful purposes. Your counsel also argues the offending in all likelihood would have occurred regardless of your involvement by allowing the use of your home.

[29]             And so in that sense, Ms Taylor-Cyphers argues your offending was not causative in any way of the supply network. It involved rather, she submits, “sins of omission”—by that I understand your omission to stop the offending or to bring it to

the notice of the authorities. And your lawyer points to what she submits was your minimal involvement in the offending.

[30]             I agree, as the Crown submits, your offending is distinguishable from all three of the comparator cases as the quantity of drugs which you permitted to be stored at and moved through your home was significantly higher than in any of them. And while Ms Taylor-Cyphers argues yours is a case most analogous to Levet I do consider there is a clear distinction given the nature and the quantities of the class A drugs involved here.

[31]             The clearest indication of the scale of your offending is the occasion on        3 October 2023, when you allowed the use of your home for the storage and onward supply of just under two kilograms of methamphetamine. The sheer quantity of methamphetamine involved on that single occasion does indicate as Mr Taffs argues, your offending is substantially more serious than the cases of Ward and Levet.

[32]             On 18 July, the earlier date when Mr Rapana was arrested and you had received a  payment  of  $850,  police  also  intercepted  a  package  and   that   weighed  1.971 kilograms of methamphetamine.

[33]             I agree with the Crown yours was a role more like that in Dodsworth, but in your case the co-defendants were dealing in wholesale quantities being moved between the North and South Island (where your sons were resident) through your home, not simply operating a venue for local sales as was Ms Dodsworth in Hawkes Bay. While Ms Dodsworth acted as a point of contact and on two occasions sold small amounts of drugs on her own account, I consider the indication from the messaging that I have referred to in which Michael cautioned you and in particular the messaging in relation to you collating items together indicates you were clearly more than a passive bystander.

[34]             I accept by permitting the commercial wholesale supply of methamphetamine from your address on multiple occasions over a period of months you were clearly a trusted “cog” in that distribution network, as the Crown submits, albeit I accept also this came about at the behest of your sons and nephew.

[35]             It may well be Ms Erikson, as your counsel submits, that the highly organised offending would have occurred regardless of your assistance. But that is to some extent beside the point, given that it is clear on the facts to which you have pleaded that you were connected to an extremely serious and high value drug distribution operation that operated over a significant period of time, including your involvement. The six instances of payments to you between March 2022 and July 2023 suggest you were involved for most of the time the operation was carried out.

[36]             That said, while as you have heard the receipt of payment is generally an aggravating factor (for obvious reasons), and a factor which I bear in mind here, the Crown responsibly acknowledges your apparent compensation was neither lavish nor proportionate to the risks that you undertook in this very unwise choice, and I agree. Notably, the payments appear to have generally decreased over time. Indeed, I consider the involvement of your family members and the nature and extent of the payments recorded in those the police identify, does tend to suggest an element here in which Mr Poa and his confreres took some advantage of your circumstances and connections with the gang through your whānau.

[37]             Weighing all these matters, I do consider your culpability is higher than all three of the most analogous comparator cases, and I adopt a starting point of three years’ imprisonment.

Totality

[38]             So having fixed that starting point, I pause to check that it is commensurate to the gravity of your offending.

[39]             You have heard me in particular have a discussion with your lawyer during the sentencing submissions this morning as to the invitation to distinguish on the basis of a query regarding your knowledge of the involvement of two class A drugs in this case.

[40]             I am bound to approach the matter on the basis of the summary of facts to which you have pleaded and which you accept, which disclose that occurring. But in particular the culpability in my view really lies in the sheer quantity and repeated

quantity of class A drugs being moved and the period over which you assisted that process.

[41]             I am satisfied there is no adjustment therefore required for totality, bearing in mind this is a representative charge and that the starting point is warranted having regard to that charge and the facts to which you have pleaded.

Personal circumstances

[42]             So, I turn now to consider your personal circumstances and how they affect the sentence which is appropriate to respond to this offending.

Pre-sentence report

[43]             I have the benefit of the pre-sentence report, a s 27 report and the letter you have written to the Court.

[44]             Ms Erikson you are 52 years old and until you were just shy of 50, you had never been before the courts.

[45]             The pre-sentence report tells me the contributing factor of your offending has been your poor decision-making. And fundamentally this is informed by your background and the matters that are dealt with in the s 27 report also, which I will come to. You raised your two sons single-handedly absent any relationship with their biological fathers or their respective families and you have been single for “many years and years”.

[46]             You nursed your father, who passed away in 2022 from cancer, through his palliative care stage. Your own mother died at the relatively young age of 51 years. You are close to your maternal aunts. You are fortunate to have the meaningful support of your sister with whom you are close, and Mr Tetini.

[47]As I have noted, before 2022 you have never before appeared before the courts.

[48]             To the pre-sentence report writer, you disclaimed that you are a drug user and made clear you were not under the influence of any substances when the offending

occurred, although I note you completed an eight-week addiction recovery programme during your time residing at Ahikaa Trust.

[49]             You also denied to the report writer that you were paid to carry out the task of handling cash and drugs. But that assertion does not align with the summary of facts. I record your counsel’s express confirmation on your behalf that while you resist attribution of the payments which have been identified as part and parcel of this offending, you accept you are for sentence on the summary of facts to which you have pleaded.

[50]             The report also records various steps which you have taken to address issues underlying this offending. It tells me you have gained an appreciation of the devastating effects of methamphetamine distribution and use and I am going to come back to consider the rehabilitative steps you have taken in a moment and what you said to me in your letter. You have been fully compliant with the terms of your EM bail over an extended period.

[51]             The report writer assesses you as at low risk of re-offending and presenting a low risk of harm to others.

[52]             The recommendation on that basis is for home detention, an outcome which is not opposed by the Crown.

Prior conviction

[53]             I agree your one prior conviction from 2022 for failing to give information under the Land Transport Act is irrelevant to the current charge and does not warrant an uplift.

Mitigating factors

Guilty plea

[54]             Turning now to mitigating facts. You pleaded guilty promptly after the Crown amended the charge list. Counsel agree you are entitled to a 25 per cent deduction for plea as do I.

Rehabilitation

[55]             The pre-sentence report details the work you have put into rehabilitation treatment while you have been on bail.

[56]             You resided with the Ahikaa Trust I am told this morning for a 10-month period and during that time you completed an eight-week addiction recovery programme called Wrap Wellness Recovery. I am told you also saw a psychologist on a weekly basis from mid-February 2024 to late March 2024. You completed three programmes through the Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS) as are articulated in the report. This engagement suggests you have strong rehabilitative potential. The pre- sentence report also states you are due to begin counselling on 25 June this year to address issues around anxiety and depression and also that you meet the criteria for a Corrections programme for women which addressed drivers behind offending.

[57]             I do note that your s 27 report refers to the fact that “recovery isn’t possible while substance use is ongoing”. There is little further information before me in relation to whether you have been using substances while on bail. That would, however, subdue the efforts that you have made.

[58]             But considering these matters and having regard to s 7(1)(g) of the Act, which sets out the sentencing purpose of assisting offenders’ rehabilitation and reintegration, I consider you have strong prospects of rehabilitation and a deduction is appropriate to reflect both the work that you have done, and the rehabilitation I trust you will continue to engage in. And I will come back to this, but I do see the two reports speaking somewhat to each other the pre-sentence report and the s 27 report.

Section 27 report

[59]I have read this report with care.

[60]             It is not necessary to relay the information in the s 27 report in any depth as it contains deeply personal content. It is enough to record that you are a wahine Māori who is culturally disconnected from your whanaungatanga. Although you have begun the process of restoring that lost heritage. You have faced many challenges in your

life, including abuse, the loss of your parents, solo parenting of a teenage son who was interacting from a young age with gang culture and your own substance abuse. You raised your sons, I accept, in the context of clearly a psychologically abusive relationship. I am satisfied that your background, in particular your relationship with your sons in this case, has causatively contributed to your offending alongside them. You are entitled to a deduction for that.

Remorse/letter 16 May 2025

[61]             You have told me in a letter of 16 May of the progress you have made during the past 18 months since you entered the Ahikaa bail reintegration services facility.

[62]             You express a sense of deep remorse. You tell me this has been a very painful lesson and you ask the Court to understand that you have learned from your mistakes and have realised the real damage and destruction that methamphetamine has done not only to your whānau but importantly to the wider community.

[63]             I accept that you feel a profound sense of shame and regret that you were not, as you have said, able to set healthier limits with your older son at an earlier age. You feel this may have prevented the path he has taken and the harmful influence he has had on his younger brother, your second son.

[64]             Ms Erikson, it is not for me to comment beyond to observe that, as you have come to realise, each adult ultimately makes their own choices and will be held to account for them where criminal offending is involved. It appears plain from the information before me, however, that in a very real sense those adult choices of both your sons—and I note that Michael maintains his denial of the allegations he faces in relation to the wider drug operation and those matters are still be resolved—those adult choices rest with those men as the adults they have become. They are not to be sheeted home to you, additionally, as their mother, by virtue of the circumstances in which you raised your children.

[65]             What is clear is that you have taken steps to demonstrate the intent and, importantly, an ability to walk the talk in rehabilitating yourself away from ever offending again in this way. I acknowledge and encourage the indications that you

may step up further in that regard and play a role in influencing others who might find themselves in similar circumstances.

Good character

[66]             I accept as your counsel seeks, a limited deduction for good character should be made.

[67]             As the Court of Appeal has recognised, a clean record, in itself, can be recognised as evidence of “previous good character”.5 A deduction in this respect is underpinned by the principle that a fall from grace is punishment in itself, and recognition that there is greater potential for rehabilitation where community involvement and good character bear witness to a reduced probability of reoffending.6

[68]             That is more powerfully so, Ms Erikson, when a person of your age comes before the court as effectively a first offender at the time of this offending. However, against that your offending was serious, and for a lengthy period of time, but you do have a hitherto clean record and you are therefore entitled to a limited deduction.

[69]             I note as Mr Taffs has submitted, there is some overlap between the credit which may be available for your rehabilitative efforts and the s 27 factors here and although Ms Taylor-Cyphers invites me to disaggregate the respective credits afforded in each respect I am not persuaded that is here necessary. But I do indicate that while I accept you have taken positive steps to begin rehabilitating yourself while upon EM bail as I have also noted some caution is I think realistic about that process given the indication in the report of perhaps some persistent substance use attitudes. Weighing those matters together, for your rehabilitative efforts and potential, your personal background, your remorse and good character I allow a combined total deduction of 20 per cent.

5      R v Hockley [2009] NZCA 74 at [30].

6      R v Howe [1982] 1 NZLR 618 (CA) at 692.

Time spent on EM bail

[70]             Section 9 of the Act also requires that I consider the time you have spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail as a mitigating factor. And so that relates to the period of time spent on bail, the relative restriction of those EM conditions, and the frequency of your authorised absences and your record of compliance while on bail, which I accept as has been put to me, has here been flawless. I consider those matters alongside any other relevant matter.7 Ms Taylor-Cyphers has sought a further reduction on account of this aspect also, invited at a quantity of five per cent.

[71]             You have been on EM bail since 31 October 2023, that is, around 18 months. You were resident at Ahikaa for 10 months and then subject to a 24-hour curfew, until 27 December 2024 I am told. But with conditions allowing absences from your bail address for approved recreational activities. Thereafter that is from the end of 2024 to date. You  have  subject  to a nightly curfew only  for the  entirety of this  year.  On 22 February 2024, you were also granted an EM bail variation in order to attend a rehabilitation programme twice a week (CADS) and those are the programmes that I have referred to in the pre-sentence report discussion.

[72]             As I say, Ms Taylor-Cyphers suggests a five per cent further deduction would be available and I agree.

[73]             So the total  deductions  to  reflect  these  matters  amount  to  50 per  cent  Ms Erikson.   Applying those matters to the starting point results in a sentence of    18 months’ imprisonment.

Home detention

[74]             That term, 18 months is what is called a short-term sentence, which means that you are eligible for consideration for home detention.

[75]             The pre-sentence report recommends home detention. You have a suitable address, where you would live with your sister who has no previous convictions and is accepted as a pro-social support, as is the other occupant.

7      See also Longman v Police [2017] NZHC 2928.

[76]The Crown does not oppose home detention.

[77]             Mr Taffs submits that that outcome will achieve the purposes and principles of sentencing and represents the least restrictive outcome available for offending of this seriousness. Importantly, it will allow you to engage in the counselling that you have arranged and continue to progress your demonstrated intention and capabilities to rehabilitate.

[78]             Section 16 of the Act expresses the desirability of keeping offenders in the community, so far as that is practicable and consonant with the safety of the community. In that latter regard, you are assessed as at a low risk of reoffending and as posing low risk of harm to others, as I have discussed.

[79]             I am satisfied for all these reasons that a sentence of home detention would here achieve the purposes and principles of sentencing and it is the least restrictive sentence appropriate.

[80]             So, your sentence will therefore be commuted to a term of nine months home detention.

Result

[81]             Ms Erikson, would you please stand now. On the single representative charge of permitting premises you are sentenced to nine months’ home detention on the standard conditions, and with the special conditions:

(a)To reside at [redacted] and not move to any new residential address without the prior written approval of a probation officer.

(b)You are to travel immediately following your sentencing directly to the Christchurch airport, and onwards to Auckland via air and return directly from the Auckland airport to that address.

(c)You are to attend an assessment for a departmental programme as directed by a probation officer. To attend and complete any counselling,

treatment or programme as recommended by the assessment as directed by and to the satisfaction of a probation officer.

(d)You are not to undertake any paid or unpaid type employment, voluntary work or training without prior written approval of a probation officer.

(e)You are not to communicate in any way or associate with your co- offenders, without the prior written approval of a probation officer.

(f)You are not to possess, consume or use any alcohol or drugs not prescribed to you.

[82]Ms Erikson, are all those conditions crystal clear? Very good, thank you.

………………………………………

Preston J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Christchurch

Counsel:
M J Taylor-Cyphers, Barrister, Auckland