R v Green - [2016] NZHC 770

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2014-088-003309 [2016] NZHC 770

THE QUEEN

v

JASMINE GREEN

Hearing: 22 April 2016

Appearances:

R Annandale for Crown
J Young for Defendant

Sentence:

22 April 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v GREEN [2016] NZHC 770 [22 April 2016]

[1] Ms Green, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty some five months before your trial to a charge of participating in an unlawful organised criminal group. The maximum penalty for that offence is ten years imprisonment.

[2] I take the facts underlying your offending from a summary of facts that has been provided to the Court. It has been provided to the Court on the basis that you accept the statements made in the summary of facts as being true and correct. That principle assumes some importance today, because some of the submissions made by your counsel in her written submissions are at variance with matters contained in the summary of facts. To the extent that that is so, I must put those submissions to one side and impose a sentence based on the factual circumstances disclosed by the summary of facts.

Background

[3] Your offending arose out of a large police operation, code-named Operation Easter. It was targeted at the manufacture of methamphetamine in the Northland area, and then the distribution of the methamphetamine through a network of dealers. Those needing the enterprise had close gang affiliations.

[4] You were not initially a target of the operation. The police only became aware of your involvement after they obtained warrants authorising them to intercept electronic communications by members of the group. Through these, they discovered that you were involved in the group as a person who held cash on behalf of the leader of the group. At that time you were in a relationship with this person, Mr Brownie Harding. You were in a relationship with him for some four years. You had a daughter by Mr Harding, who is now two years old.

[5] The communications revealed that a large methamphetamine manufacturing operation was being conducted from a rural property in Northland. The police monitored this property for a period of about ten weeks from the end of September
2014 to mid-November 2014. During that time they were able to observe methamphetamine being manufactured on the premises on no fewer than six occasions. Very large quantities of methamphetamine were manufactured.

[6] The summary of facts records that up to nine kilograms of methamphetamine are likely to have been manufactured, which is an extraordinarily large amount by any standards. It is in fact one of the largest, if not the largest, manufacturing cases ever to come before the courts in New Zealand.

[7] There is no suggestion that you had any role at all in the manufacturing side of the operation, or realistically speaking in the distribution of the methamphetamine. Rather, through your association with Mr Harding you became a person trusted to hold large amounts of cash derived…

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 Green

Details

AGLC: R v Green [2016] NZHC 770
Case: [2016] NZHC 770
Decision Date: 22 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Green involved the defendant, Jasmine Green, who was sentenced for participating in an unlawful organised criminal group involved in the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. The court heard that Green had been involved in the group by storing large amounts of cash derived from the sale of methamphetamine, although she was not directly involved in the manufacturing or distribution. The case was part of a larger police operation targeting methamphetamine production and distribution in the Northland area.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing given Green's role in the group, the consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors, and deciding whether to impose a sentence of imprisonment or home detention. The court had to balance the principles of deterrence and denunciation with personal factors such as Green's remorse and lack of direct involvement in the more serious aspects of the group's activities.

The court determined that a starting point of two years and six months imprisonment was appropriate, considering Green's role and the seriousness of the group's activities. Mitigating factors such as Green's genuine remorse and lack of personal gain from the criminal activity reduced the starting point to 21 months. Given the limited role Green played, her lack of direct involvement in the more serious aspects of the group's activities, and her low risk of reoffending, the court opted for a sentence of home detention instead of imprisonment. The court sentenced Green to eight months of home detention with specific conditions, including residing at her parents' address and abstaining from alcohol and non-prescription drugs.

Orders