R v F - [2018] NZHC 2602

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-044-004279

[2018] NZHC 2602

THE QUEEN

v

F

Hearing: 20-21 September 2018

Appearances:

N Webby for Crown

M Pecotic for Defendant

Judgment:

5 October 2018

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Palmer on 5 October 2018 at 3.00 pm
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar / Deputy Registrar Date………………………

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland M Pecotic, Barrister, Auckland

R v F [2018] NZHC 2602 [5 October 2018]

Summary

[1] Ms F pleaded guilty to two charges of supplying methamphetamine and one charge of supplying cocaine, which are both class A drugs.1 The Crown submits she should be sentenced on the basis she was the kingpin of a large methamphetamine supply operation. Ms F submits she was a “Tongan blonde” who was only a minor cog in the operation. After a disputed facts hearing, I consider it is established beyond reasonable doubt that Ms F passed on directions about the supply of methamphetamine and counted and delivered money. That was an important and crucial role. But I do not consider it is established beyond reasonable doubt that she was the kingpin directing or organising the operation.

Context of offending

Charges

[2] Ms F was charged, along with a number of other defendants, with supplying very large amounts of methamphetamine, and a lesser but still large amount of cocaine. Relevantly, Mr Henry Robati pleaded guilty to a charge of supplying, and Mr Adrian Le’Ca and Mr Fred Uputaua pleaded guilty to charges of possessing, 14.9 kilograms of methamphetamine and 1.9 kilograms of cocaine on 30 September 2016. Mr Callan Hughes pleaded guilty to supplying nine kilograms of methamphetamine on 8 November 2016.

Ms F’s pleas

[3] Ms F was due to stand trial on 12 charges of supplying methamphetamine and one of supplying cocaine. On Wednesday 20 June 2018, the day before the trial was due to commence, she pleaded guilty to three charges:2

(a)one charge of supplying 14.9 kilograms of methamphetamine and one charge of supplying 1.9 kilograms of cocaine to Mr Le’Ca and

1 Ms F is due to be tried on further charges in April 2019, so her name and identifying particulars are suppressed until then to preserve her fair trial rights.
2 Minute No 3 of Palmer J, dated 20 June 2018.

Mr Uputaua on or about 29 September 2016, together with Mr Robati; and

(b)one charge of supplying nine kilograms of methamphetamine on 8 November 2016 to a person unknown, on or about 8 November 2106, together with her then-partner, Mr Hughes.

[4]The Crown will apply to withdraw the other charges.

[5] Ms F was scheduled to be sentenced on 24 August 2018. Ms F pleaded guilty on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. But that is largely…

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 [2018] NZHC 2602
Case: [2018] NZHC 2602
Decision Date: 5 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms F pleaded guilty to multiple charges of supplying methamphetamine and one charge of supplying cocaine. The Crown argued that she was the kingpin of a large methamphetamine supply operation, while Ms F claimed she was a minor cog in the operation, easily manipulated by others. The court was required to determine the extent of Ms F's involvement in the drug supply operation to properly sentence her. The court heard evidence from both the Crown and Ms F during a disputed facts hearing, including intercepted communications and police observations. The court found that Ms F played a crucial role in the operation by passing on directions about the supply of methamphetamine and counting money. However, the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that she was the kingpin directing or organising the operation. The court concluded that Ms F's role was that of a trusted communications link and that she was more than a minor cog in the operation. However, the court did not find that she was in charge of directing or organising the operation.

Palmer J ordered that Ms F be sentenced on the basis that she played an important and crucial role in the methamphetamine supply operation, but not as the directing or organising figure. The court considered the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that Ms F passed on directions about the supply of methamphetamine and counted the money used to pay for it. However, the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that she was the kingpin directing or organising the operation. The court found that Ms F was a trusted communications link and played a crucial role in the operation, but not as the one in charge. The court did not accept the Crown's argument that Ms F was the organiser and instigator of the methamphetamine supply operation. Nor did the court accept Ms F's submission that she was not the kingpin of the methamphetamine operation. The court found that Ms F's role was that of a trusted communications link and that she was more than a minor cog in the operation. However, the court did not find that she was in charge of directing or organising the operation.

Orders