R v Erikson

[2025] NZHC 187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-009-7536 [2025] NZHC 187

THE KING

v

JAXXON ERIKSON

Hearing:                   14 February 2025 Appearances:  C R Stuart for Crown

K J Beaton KC for Defendant Sentencing Notes:  14 February 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF EATON J

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

R v ERIKSON [2025] NZHC 187 [14 February 2025]

Introduction

[1]                 Jaxxon  Erikson,  you  appear  for  sentence   having   pleaded   guilty   to  two representative charges of supplying methamphetamine,1 possessing methamphetamine for supply,2 kidnapping3 and participation in an organised criminal group.4

Background

[2]                 You were arrested as part of a police investigation into a multi-million-dollar methamphetamine and cocaine supply network of drugs to Christchurch which was operated by the Tribesmen Motorcycle  Gang  (Tribesmen  MC)  between  September 2021 and October 2023.

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

[4]                 Ricky Poa is a patched member of the Tribesmen MC gang. He holds the rank of National Vice President. Mr Poa has entered guilty pleas, admitting his role in the offending. He has been given and accepted a sentence indication but is yet to be sentenced.

[5]                 I talk about Mr Poa because he was the principal offender of this methamphetamine and cocaine supply network. 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 the cash in his physical possession. Instead, he arranged for his trusted patched members and gang associates, including yourself, to manage the transportation of the drugs and storage of the cash and drugs.

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, s 209(b) and 66; maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

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

[6]                 Mr Erikson, you are 24 years old. At the time, you were a prospect for the Tribesmen MC. You worked very closely with, and I accept under the direction and influence of, your older brother, Michael. He is a senior and, from what I can assess, a very loyal patched member of the gang. The summary of facts describes you as a soldier or worker 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 is over the period from when you arrived in Christchurch  in  late  December 2022 through to 17 July 2023. During that time, you assisted your brother to organise a co-defendant, Jordan Rapana, to travel to Auckland and exchange cash for drugs. This was often actioned from your mother’s house. Mr Rapana would return to Christchurch and deliver wholesale quantities of methamphetamine to the address you shared with your brother. You and your brother 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 for the role you played, albeit there is no evidence that your financial reward was significant.

[8]                 Mr Rapana was arrested on 18 July 2023, at  Christchurch  airport  with  1.971 kilograms of methamphetamine in his possession. Earlier that day, police intercepted a conversation between you and Mr Poa where you asked for permission for yourself or your brother to leave and receive methamphetamine from Mr Rapana at the airport. You are charged with possession of methamphetamine for supply in relation to that incident.   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 the second supply line. That was managed by another co-offender. This supply line typically utilised tow trucks and passenger ferries to transport drugs and cash between Christchurch and Auckland. In relation to the second supply line, you have pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for supply between 18 July and 2 October 2023.

[10]             The total agreed amount of methamphetamine involved in your admitted offending in relation to both supply lines is around 14 kilograms.

[11]             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 a listening device had been installed by the police. You were the driver. The three of you were monitoring a home in Christchurch where a person who owed a drug debt to the Tribesmen MC resided. The female victim of the kidnapping lived with that person.

[12]               At 10.20 pm, you observed the female occupant of the address 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 permitted to drop her child, who was with her, back at her home. Then, as directed, she returned to your vehicle. Mr Stuart then taunted, threatened and abused the victim. It was asserted that she and the male owed $20,000 to the Tribesmen MC. Mr Stuart’s threats to bash the victim were recorded. You were present in the car throughout. The kidnapping lasted 12 minutes, before she was dropped back home.

Personal background

[13]             I have read the pre-sentence report. I have read your affidavit which was sworn this morning. I have read your mother’s affidavit and I have looked at the various certificates bundled together that record your achievements in prison over the period of your custodial remand.

[14]             As I say, you are 24 years old, but you were 22 when you joined this drug dealing network. You appear before the court convicted of criminal offending for the first time.

[15]             The pre-sentence report provided to the court identifies drug abuse and antisocial peers as relevant to your offending, that is, bad influences. Your parents separated when you were around four years old, and you were raised by your mother in Auckland alongside your brother. You left school at 15 years, without

qualifications, and prior to your arrest you were on a sickness benefit due to ongoing depression and anxiety.

[16]             In your affidavit you have described how you have struggled with your mental health for many years and that you have been self-medicating using marijuana since the age of thirteen. You did not have a relationship with your father and looked to your older brother for guidance. But during your adolescent years he was “in and out” of jail. However, upon his release in September 2022, you moved to be with him in Christchurch and you shared a flat with him. An aunt of yours, interviewed for the pre-sentence report, stated that growing up you struggled with obesity, had no close friends and that you had no self-esteem or confidence. In the report you identify your association with the Tribesmen MC as the first time you had friends. That is further emphasised by you in your affidavit.

[17]             You tell me that you were consuming cannabis daily, cocaine weekly and methamphetamine monthly. You acknowledge the impact your drug abuse had on your ability to make good decisions and you say your thinking has been a lot clearer since you have been on remand and drug free.

[18]             The pre-sentence report assesses you as a low risk of re-offending. It records that you do want to gain employment and you want to lead a more productive lifestyle. However, you also acknowledged it is going to be a struggle for you to leave the Tribesmen MC and you did not explicitly undertake that you would remain drug free.

Approach to sentencing

[19]             The Sentencing Act 2002 sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing that I am required to take into account in sentencing you today. Relevant purposes include accountability, denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation. I need to consider the gravity of your offending, the degree of your personal culpability or blameworthiness and the seriousness of the offending. I have to have regard to the general desirability of imposing a sentence on you that is consistent with the sentences

imposed on others for similar offending. I am required by law to impose one I assess to be the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in all the circumstances.

[20]             In passing sentence, I must fix a period of imprisonment that is commensurate with the seriousness of your offending, in accordance with sentencing guidelines for Class A drug dealing that have been provided by the appellate courts.5 Broadly, your culpability is 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 consider the various personal matters that have been addressed in the material that could either aggravate or mitigate, and from that I arrive at an end sentence.

[21]             In sentencing you, it is important to recognise the harm that is caused to our community by serious Class A drug offending. The distribution of methamphetamine has countless victims within the community, people who often experience the very worst outcomes. That includes adverse mental health, people committing criminal offences to feed their addictions, the breakdown of personal and employment relationships, and social deprivation.7 There is no question that society as a whole suffers from methamphetamine and that is important when it comes to fixing a sentence for those who deal in significant quantities of methamphetamine.

Starting point

[22]             Mr Stuart, for the Crown, submits a starting point in the region of 12 years’ imprisonment for the totality of your drug offending, with an uplift of nine months for the kidnapping charge is appropriate. Ms Beaton KC, on your behalf, submits that the starting point can be a bit less than that, at around 10 years’ imprisonment with an uplift of six months for the kidnapping offence.

[23]             Both counsel are in agreement that there is no need for me to impose an additional sentence for your participation in an organised criminal group.

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

NZLR 648.

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

7      Zhang v R, above n 6, at [78]–[79].

Methamphetamine dealing

[24]             The lead offending is the methamphetamine offending. I take a global approach dealing with all charges together. I will deal with the kidnapping separately. I agree with counsel that your participation in the organised criminal group is very much part and parcel of the drug offending and that will be factored into that starting point.

[25]             How the quantity of methamphetamine involved in your offending fits within the sentencing process has been established by reference to the five bands identified in Zhang v R.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 is caused to the community. Band five is for the most serious cases. It applies only when the quantities are more than two kilograms of drugs.9 Cases within that band will generally be met by starting points that range from 10 years at the bottom, that is close to two kilograms, right through to life imprisonment for the highest level of drug quantity.10 The agreed quantity of your offending is around 14 kilograms, which places your offending well into band five of Zhang.

[26]             However, the role you played in the network is also an important consideration. Offenders may play what I describe as lesser, significant, or leading roles and it is acknowledged that the starting points may be adjusted up or down in response to reduced or increased culpability  through  the  different  roles  an  offender  plays.  Mr Stuart accepts you had a lesser role, that is the bottom category, but he submits “it is not at the lowest end” of those categories identified by the Supreme Court in Berkland v R.11 Ms Beaton submits your role falls within the lesser role and she says that any management tasks that might have been attributed to you do not impact on that classification.

8 At [125].

9 At [125].

10 At [125].

11     Berkland v R, above n 6, at [71].

[27]             The summary of facts that I have read, and it has been referenced by counsel, makes repeated reference to the actions of the Erikson brothers, but it is accepted that you were acting primarily under the directions of your brother, who is a senior patched member of the gang and a very loyal servant to Mr Poa.

[28]             On the other hand, you were a prospect for the gang. I accept that your role was significantly less culpable than that of your brothers.

[29]             However, the facts do show that you were involved in the supply network for a period of around 10 months. They show me that you were close to the original source of the drugs (you were handling wholesale quantities of methamphetamine), you were in direct communications with Mr Poa who, as I have said, was the head of the operation. I find you must have had knowledge of the scale of the operation, and there are occasions where, for example, you bought flights for Mr Rapana indicating he was acting under you in the overall chain of command. You were motivated by financial reward in part albeit I do not see that as being a particularly significant factor.

[30]             Looking at your role, I agree with both counsel that you fall within the lesser category as established in Berkland, 12 but I agree with Mr Stuart that I could not find your role as at the very lowest end.

[31]             Mr Erikson, I sentenced Mr Smith earlier this week, and in sentencing him I considered a number of cases that were dealing with band five Zhang quantities of methamphetamine. Those cases involved higher quantities than your offending. I have also had regard to the sentence indication that has been imposed on Mr Poa, and to R v Kim13 the supply of 15 kilograms of methamphetamine albeit with a person who had a higher role than you played and where a 14-year starting point was adopted.

[32]             When I stand back and look at each of those cases, the quantity of drug involved in your case and the role you played in this offending, I consider a starting point of 11 years’ imprisonment is appropriate for the two representative charges of

12     Berkland v R, above n 6, at [71].

13     R v Kim [2022] NZHC 952; and R v Kim [2023] NZCA 332 at [30].

supplying methamphetamine, the charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply and your participation in an organised criminal group.

Kidnapping charge

[33]             Mr Stuart for the Crown, submits that the starting point that was adopted for Dylan Stuart, the principal offender, of 2.5 years’ imprisonment is appropriately applied to you but, because unlike Mr Stuart, your lead offending is Class A drug dealing, and because it is accepted that the kidnapping was committed as part and parcel of the wider drug offending, Mr Stuart submits that an uplift of nine months is appropriate. Ms Beaton supports the approach that Mr Stuart takes, but she says that the uplift should be no more than six months, stressing that you were a party to the kidnapping and acting under the influence of your brother.

[34]             In sentencing Mr Stuart, Mander J took into account that the kidnapping involved multiple offenders, that it occurred in the wider context of organised criminal activity, that there was a significant degree of premeditation, and there were threats of serious violence that accompanied the detention.14 The Judge also acknowledged there was no physical violence or use of force and referred to the case of Cassidy-Gugich v R15which also involved a brief kidnapping absent physical violence.16

[35]             As I said during the course of discussions with Ms Beaton, I look at this kidnapping as being classic gang stand over tactics. You may not have been the one running the show and uttering the threats, but you played an important role both as the driver and in swelling the numbers in order to intimidate the victim. You say you did not expect threats to be made to the victim. I do not buy that.

[36]             I fix the appropriate starting point as nine months’ imprisonment. I consider that to be a lenient uplift for the kidnapping.

14     R v Stuart [2024] NZHC 2461 [R v Stuart (indication)]at [10]; see also R v Stuart [2024] NZHC 3471

15     Cassidy-Gugich v R [2016] NZHC 3027 at [16].

16     R v Stuart (indication), above n 15, at [11]–[12].

[37]             What that means, Mr Erikson, is a global starting  point  of 11  years  and nine months’ imprisonment.

Personal mitigating factors

[38]             There are no personal factors that aggravate your offending that warrant an uplift. Ms Beaton submits there are a number of factors, personal to you, that mitigate your offending.

Guilty plea

[39]             Your counsel says it is open to the Court to impose the maximum 25 per cent deduction for guilty pleas. The maximum credit is reserved for defendants who plead guilty at the first reasonable opportunity. You did not plead guilty at the first reasonable opportunity. Rather, you pleaded guilty after the Crown had agreed to some accommodations both in the charges and the facts. But also, you have benefitted, and in my view, benefitted not insignificantly from the arrangements that have been made with other defendants. In particular I refer to the manner in which I have dealt with the cocaine supply charge this morning. That is a benefit you would unlikely have received had you entered guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity. I consider the appropriate deduction for guilty pleas is 20 per cent.

Other factors

[40]             Mr Beaton proposes a further 15 per cent deduction to reflect your background factors that are said to be causal of your offending, 10 per cent deduction for your youth and five per cent discount for remorse and rehabilitation. Mr Stuart makes a general submission in response. He acknowledges some further deduction is appropriate, recognising that you are currently only 24 years old, have no previous convictions, that you have good prospects for rehabilitation and that your offending was borne out of your misplaced sense of loyalty and a sense of belonging that you felt within the gang environment.

Personal background

[41]             The Supreme Court in Berkland v R observed that contributory factors can provide rational explanations for an offender’s actions. The Court said:17

Contributory deprivation, including that precipitated by historical dispossession and sustained by poor educational and other intergenerational outcomes, can help to explain an offender’s limited life options, poor coping skills or other criminogenic circumstances that made the offending more likely. Where these factors do help explain how the offender came to offend, they will amount to causative contribution and so will be relevant for the purpose of sentencing …

[42]             Your pre-sentence report, your affidavit and your mother’s affidavit do help explain how you came to be involved in a major drug supply network. Your background included witnessing domestic violence, bullying and other forms of abuse, parental drug use, parental separation, and inevitably a poor education. The material I have reviewed describes the mental health challenges you faced as a young person. You have a history of debilitating social anxiety, low self-esteem and of living an isolated existence. I acknowledge that your mental health and anxiety were important underlying factors that led to your social isolation, and it was that isolation that led you to forge links with your brother and ultimately with the gang. There can be little doubt that when you arrived in Christchurch to be with your brother you were otherwise alone and, I accept, vulnerable to the negative influences of your brother. And I do accept that vulnerability is closely connected to your background. It was, of course, the gang environment, and the sense of brotherhood that you craved, that led to your involvement in this very serious drug and violent offending.

[43]             So, I am satisfied there is a causal connection between your personal background and your offending. To recognise that connection I make an allowance of 15 per cent.

Youth and rehabilitation

[44]             You are aged 24 with have no prior convictions. Given the challenges of your past, it is to your credit that you have not previously offended. You were 22 at the start

17     Berkland v R, above n 6, at [109].

of your offending period and 23 when you were arrested. You are on the outside of the range where the court might consider a youth credit. I am not so sure that the factors that would be typically associated with youth offending help explain your involvement in this network. I rather think it was more your background factors I have discussed that gave rise to that association. But I do agree that as a young man with no prior experience of incarceration, you are vulnerable within the prison environment.

[45]             And I acknowledge that one of the rationales for allowing a youth credit is that a young person has a greater capacity for rehabilitation. What that means is if I am sentencing somebody who is 50 and been living this lifestyle of gangs and drugs for years, there is very little the court can do to help them, and that person generally finds himself quite lost and we hear the term “institutionalised” being used. But that does not apply to a young person. There is still a lot of hope for you.

[46]             I agree with Ms Beaton that during the period of your custodial remand you have demonstrated that you have really good rehabilitative potential. You have been attending and completing programmes from within prison. You have been accepted onto the Hokai Tapuwae programme which focuses on therapeutic cultural intervention, helping participants understand their place within te ao Māori. The pre-sentence report is optimistic about the beneficial impact that will have for you. You have also identified positive goals that you can work towards in terms of a legitimate life away from crime. You are talking about your own clothing label. You say you have a passion for that. You hope to undertake study to make that goal a reality. Those are really positive aspirations. Your affidavit tells me that you are open to counselling to address the struggles you have had with your own mental health.

[47]             To reflect your age, your previous good character and your rehabilitative prospects, I am going to allow a further deduction of 10 per cent.

Remorse

[48]             I acknowledge you have expressed your remorse and you have taken responsibility for your offending. You seem to have insight into the harm methamphetamine causes in the community. I acknowledge that you did offer to

participate in restorative justice with the victim of the kidnapping offending. What is missing from your insight is the harm that gangs cause. You said in your affidavit that you believe “being part of the gang was the best thing that ever happened to me”. The brotherhood that you speak of and enjoyed is exactly what led you to be sitting the dock today facing a lengthy sentence of imprisonment. It is that brotherhood, it is that gang who was dealing in such significant quantities of methamphetamine, wreaking havoc on our community. I can understand why you remain in two minds about your future relationship with the gang because you are young. All I can do is tell you that as a Judge, almost every week I am sentencing men who have been associated with gangs for a significant part of their life and they consistently express regret at the life that the gang influence has led them to live. I encourage you to reflect on that. Really, as a part of that encouragement, I am going to make a small deduction of two months’ imprisonment to reflect the remorse that you have demonstrated.

[49]             The total deduction I have assessed as appropriate is a little over 45 per cent. From the starting point of 11 years and nine months’ imprisonment, rounded down, that results in an end sentence of six years and three months’ imprisonment.

Result

[50]Mr Erikson, will you please stand.

[51]             Jaxxon Erikson on charges of supplying methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine for supply you are sentencing to six years and three months’ imprisonment.

[52]On the charge of kidnapping, you are sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment.

[53]             On the charge of participating in an organised criminal group, you are sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.

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

[55]I wish you well, you may stand down.

……………………………….

Eaton J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors

Counsel:

K J Beaton KC, Christchurch