R v Griffen - [2024] NZHC 1802

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

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

CRI-2021-088-2754

[2024] NZHC 1802

THE KING

v

MARCELLA GRIFFEN

Hearing: 3 July 2024

Appearances:

B O’Connor for the Crown B Hunt for the Defendant

Sentence:

3 July 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF BECROFT J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Marsden Woods Inskip & Smith, Whangarei B Hunt, Hobson Chambers, Auckland

R v GRIFFEN [2024] NZHC 1802 [3 July 2024]

The charges

[1] Marcella Patricia May Griffen you appear for sentencing in respect of the following three charges.

(a)Importation of methamphetamine, a single charge, carrying with it a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.1

(b)Conspiracy to import methamphetamine relating to two separate importations, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.2
(c)Participation in an organised criminal group, relating particularly to two separate importations of methamphetamine, with a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.3

Facts

Overview of the operation

[2] Ms Griffen your offending 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.

[3] The investigation commenced in March 2020, and it ended in November 2021. Thirteen people were identified as being the main offenders.

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

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a) and (2)(a).
2      Section 6(1)(a) and 6(2A)(a).
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.

[5] 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.

[6] For your part in the operation, you were not arrested until January 2022 as Auckland was in a Covid-19 lockdown during the previous November and December.

[7] Twenty different illegal importations were identified as part of the operation. You have pleaded guilty to one specific importing charge and in respect of the other two charges, there were two individual importations for each.

[8] The essential means of importation from overseas was that a number of false or artificial email addresses and identities were created, often involving very professional looking, but fake driver licences.

[9] There was email contact by members of the group with overseas suppliers and with the freighting companies. Packages and parcels (containing hidden drugs) were sent to recipients who all had false names, although they had apparently used their correct addresses. It was done in this way to preserve anonymity as best as possible. The leader of the group kept a distance, but he was clearly the ringleader. Members of the group contacted the Customs officials and the freight forwarding companies, they uplifted the goods, and they transported them—at least on the single importing charge to which you have pleaded guilty—to Takahiwai Road, Ruakākā.

[10] You lived at one of the…

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 Griffen

Details

AGLC: R v Griffen [2024] NZHC 1802
Case: [2024] NZHC 1802
Decision Date: 3 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Marcella Patricia May Griffen appeared before Becroft J in the High Court of New Zealand, Whangarei Registry, for sentencing on charges of methamphetamine importation, conspiracy to import methamphetamine, and participation in an organised criminal group. Griffen pleaded guilty to one count of methamphetamine importation, conspiracy to import in relation to two separate importations, and participation in an organised criminal group involving two specific importations. The court heard that Griffen's involvement in the operation was part of a sophisticated drug trafficking scheme operating in Northland, New Zealand, involving multiple participants. Griffen’s role, though significant, was influenced by her abusive relationship with another co-defendant and her methamphetamine addiction.

The legal issues the court needed to decide included the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the extent of Griffen's role in the criminal activities, and the various mitigating factors to be considered. The court had to balance the seriousness of the crimes with Griffen’s personal circumstances, including her addiction and abusive relationship, while also considering the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court determined a starting point of nine years' imprisonment, reflecting the severity of the crimes but reduced due to Griffen's lesser role within the operation. After considering mitigating factors such as her guilty plea, addiction, and significant rehabilitation efforts, the court reduced the sentence by 52.5%. The final sentence was four years' imprisonment, with an additional deduction for time spent on electronically monitored bail, resulting in an effective sentence of four years and three months. The court emphasised the importance of continued rehabilitation and support for Griffen post-sentence.

Orders