R v Gillett - [2024] NZHC 1221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2021-088-002754

[2024] NZHC 1221

THE KING

v

TAIOMA ROBERT GILLETT

Hearing: 13 December 2023

Appearances:

A Goodwin for the Crown

J Moroney on behalf of S Thode for the Defendant

Judgment:

15 May 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF BECROFT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 May 2024 at 9 am Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Marsden Woods Inskip & Smith, Whangarei Thode Utting, Albany

R v GILLETT [2024] NZHC 1221 [15 May 2024]

The charges

[1]Taioma Robert Gillett, you appear for sentencing in respect of four charges.

(a)Importation of methamphetamine, relating to a single incident.1

(b)A representative charge of importing methamphetamine which relates to four other separate importations.2

Both these charges carry with them a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

(c)Participation in an organised criminal group, carrying with it a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.3

(d)A failure to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search, carrying with it a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.4

[2] You pleaded guilty to these charges after accepting a sentencing indication I gave you on 13 December 2023.

Facts

Overview of the operation

[3] Your offending, Mr Gillett, was uncovered as part of a joint Police and Customs investigation codenamed “Freya”, which was commenced after a number of illegal drug importations destined for the same Northland address were intercepted by Customs.

[4] Overall, the detected offending spans from March 2020 through to 3 November 2021. It involves offending committed by a group of people, of which you were a part, who were all linked—either through family contacts or association with the

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(a) and (2)(a).
2      Sections 6(1)(a) and (2)(a).
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.
4      Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 178.

Head Hunters motorcycle gang. Thirteen defendants were identified as being the main offenders.

[5] The primary drug of choice was methamphetamine. But, on occasions, it involved the Class B-controlled drugs MDMA and pseudoephedrine.

[6] Without going into all the details, it appeared to be a reasonably sophisticated operation. It was not just confined to importation, which is the subject of your sentencing, but also, it is said, included the production and manufacture of methamphetamine and its distribution.

[7] Operation Freya concluded on 12 November 2021 with a number of search warrants being executed. However, you were not arrested until January 2022 as Auckland was in a COVID-19 lockdown during the previous November and December.

[8] Twenty different illegal importations were identified. The essential means of importation from overseas was that a number of false or artificial email addresses and identities were created. I note that they included identities such as Quade Cooper— which I must say, in passing, is just the most foolhardy choice of name imaginable that must have aroused the suspicions of officials—as Quade Cooper as you would know is a well-known, sometimes controversial, and high-profile Australian rugby player.

[9] There was…

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 Gillett

Details

AGLC: R v Gillett [2024] NZHC 1221
Case: [2024] NZHC 1221
Decision Date: 15 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Taioma Robert Gillett was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand in Whangarei for his involvement in a large-scale methamphetamine importation operation. Gillett pleaded guilty to four charges: importation of methamphetamine, participation in an organised criminal group, and failure to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search. The charges stemmed from a joint Police and Customs investigation named "Freya," which uncovered a sophisticated operation involving the importation, production, and distribution of methamphetamine. Gillett was identified as a mid-level member of the group, using false identities to facilitate the importation of over 8 kilograms of methamphetamine.

The court had to decide on the appropriate sentencing for Gillett, considering the gravity of the charges, his level of involvement, and mitigating factors such as his guilty plea and personal background. The court found that Gillett's role was significant, involving multiple importations, advanced knowledge of the operation, and direct contact with the leader of the group. However, the court also considered his background, which included exposure to gangs and a history of substance abuse. The starting point for sentencing was set at 13 years, reflecting the severity of the offending. After applying reductions for his guilty plea, personal circumstances, and prospects of rehabilitation, the court sentenced Gillett to a total of nine years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of four years before parole eligibility.

The court's reasoning focused on the need to denounce the offending, protect the community, and provide a deterrent against future crimes. The significant amount of drugs involved and the organised nature of the operation warranted a substantial sentence. However, the court also acknowledged Gillett's personal history and efforts towards rehabilitation, which led to a reduction in the overall sentence. The final order was for Gillett to serve nine years' imprisonment concurrently, with a minimum period of four years before parole eligibility.

Orders