R v F - [2025] NZHC 651

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-004-009271

[2025] NZHC 651

THE KING

v

F

Hearing: 27 March 2025

Counsel:

HDL Steele and BN Kirkpatrick for Crown TM Cooper KC and SJ Bird for Defendant

Judgment:

27 March 2025

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

(Redacted)

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland. TM Cooper KC, Auckland. SJ Bird, Auckland.

R v F [2025] NZHC 651 [27 March 2025]

Introduction

[1] [F], you are for sentence on five charges: supplying methamphetamine; possessing methamphetamine for supply; importing that drug; possessing methamphetamine for the purpose of supply; and participating in an organised criminal group. Each of the methamphetamine charges is punishable by life imprisonment.1

[2] All your offending occurred while you were serving a sentence of imprisonment for importing methamphetamine and participating in an organised criminal group.

[3] The Crown argues the only appropriate penalty is life imprisonment. On your behalf, Ms Cooper KC contends a cumulative but finite sentence of imprisonment is warranted. Unlike a finite sentence, life imprisonment may not be imposed cumulatively on your existing sentence.2

[4]I say something about the facts.

Facts

[5] On [redacted], a Judge of this Court sentenced you to a term of [redacted] imprisonment with a minimum period of [redacted].3 That sentence concerned your importation of [redacted] kilograms of methamphetamine to this country, and your related participation in an organised criminal group.

[6] This brings me to your current crimes. In August 2022, you used a mobile phone to arrange, from within prison, the sale of a kilogram of methamphetamine for
$160,000, and independently of that transaction, the sale of a further five ounces of methamphetamine for $25,000. Both transactions are governed today by a single charge of supplying methamphetamine.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(a)
2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 23.
3      R v F [redacted].

[7] Later that month, you possessed a kilogram of methamphetamine for supply, and corresponded with another about whether he had a purchaser.

[8] I move to 2023. On 5 June that year, a container arrived at the Ports of Auckland. In it were four threshers, which are large pieces of agricultural equipment. They seemingly came from Dubai. Examination revealed “a sophisticated concealment of controlled drugs” inside each thresher.4 These hid a total of
198.2 kilograms of methamphetamine, with 80 percent purity.

[9] You orchestrated that importation from prison. You did so using a mobile phone and an application that encrypted your messages. As would be expected, others were involved too. I say more about your role shortly. For the moment, it is sufficient to observe that in addition to importing that drug, you were in control of it for the purpose of supply to others.

[10] The remaining charge of participating in an organised criminal group is directed at the broader conspiracy to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v F

Details

AGLC: R v F [2025] NZHC 651
Case: [2025] NZHC 651
Decision Date: 27 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant F was sentenced on five charges related to drug trafficking and participation in a criminal organization. The charges included supplying, possessing, and importing methamphetamine, as well as participating in an organized criminal group. Each charge carried the potential for life imprisonment. The sentencing hearing was presided over by Justice Downs, who had to decide whether to impose life imprisonment or a finite sentence on the defendant.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's prior criminal history and his current offenses warranted life imprisonment or a finite sentence, and how to balance the mitigating factors, such as his early guilty plea and personal background, against the severity of the offenses. The Crown argued that the gravity of the crimes, including the large quantities of methamphetamine involved and the defendant's leading role in the criminal enterprise, justified life imprisonment. The defense, however, contended that a finite sentence would be more appropriate, considering the defendant's early guilty plea and the potential impact on encouraging other defendants to plead guilty in similar cases.

Justice Downs concluded that while the defendant's guilty plea and age were mitigating factors, the severity of his offenses, particularly his role in orchestrating drug trafficking from prison, outweighed these considerations. The court emphasized the need for denunciation, deterrence, and community protection. Consequently, the court imposed life imprisonment on each of the methamphetamine charges, with a minimum non-parole period of 10 years, and the maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment for the organized criminal group charge, to run concurrently with the defendant's existing sentence.

Orders