R v Griffiths - [2023] NZHC 2371

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-6031

[2023] NZHC 2371

THE KING

v

MARK ANTHONY GRIFFITHS

Hearing: 28 April 2023

Counsel:

J Hamilton for Crown

S Mills and B Gloyn for Defendant

Sentence:

28 April 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF ISAC J

Introduction

[1] Mr Griffiths, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to charges of supplying methamphetamine (a representative charge),1 possession of methamphetamine for supply,2 importing methamphetamine,3 supplying the Class B controlled drug GBL,4 and possession of that substance for supply.5

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(f); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(a) and Crimes Act, s 66(1); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(c) and Crimes Act, s 66(1); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
5      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(f); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

R v GRIFFITHS [2023] NZHC 2371 [28 April 2023]

[2] The most serious charges are those relating to importation and the supply and possession for supply of methamphetamine. Those charges carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The remaining charges carry a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.

Background

[3] You are a senior member of the Mongrel Mob Waikato Kingdom Chapter and identify yourself as second in charge. You were arrested following the termination of a police investigation known as Operation Oakville. This focused on the supply of Class A and Class B controlled drugs in the Waikato, Auckland and Wellington regions. During the operation, which lasted for approximately 12 months, the police obtained surveillance device warrants that enabled them to intercept the communications of a number of individuals.

[4] The police discovered you were involved in obtaining and supervising the supply of large quantities of Class A and Class B drugs. You were identified as a leading individual in the drug distribution network who oversaw the majority of the criminal activity undertaken by the wider group. You were directly involved in obtaining wholesale quantities from several sources and providing those to individuals within your network to facilitate the wider distribution of the drug into the community. The network included your brother John and your former partner, Ms Sharon Marfell, who worked closely with you and generally accompanied you on trips to source Class A and B drugs. She was engaged in a prolific supply of methamphetamine, providing it to other members of the group for on-supply as well as dealing to her own customers. She was also involved in collecting drug debts owed to you.

[5] Below your partner were Ms Keyte, Mr Iakopo, and Mr Cole. Two other individuals—one based in Auckland and another in Wellington—also sourced wholesale quantities of methamphetamine for you. This was, as the Crown describes, large scale commercial dealing.

[6] The representative charge of supplying methamphetamine spans the twelve-month period between October 2019 to October 2020, which…

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 Griffiths

Details

AGLC: R v Griffiths [2023] NZHC 2371
Case: [2023] NZHC 2371
Decision Date: 28 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Griffiths involved Mark Anthony Griffiths, a senior member of the Mongrel Mob Waikato Kingdom Chapter, who pleaded guilty to multiple drug-related charges, including the supply and possession of methamphetamine and GBL for supply. The charges stemmed from his involvement in a large-scale drug distribution network, with Griffiths identified as a leading figure who oversaw the majority of the criminal activity. The court considered the seriousness of the charges, which carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for the methamphetamine charges and up to 14 years for the GBL charges. The court determined an appropriate starting point of 13 years and six months for the methamphetamine-related charges, and an uplift of at least two years for the remaining charges, resulting in an overall starting point of 15 and a half years’ imprisonment.

The court assessed Griffiths' role within the drug dealing network and found him to be the leading figure, despite acknowledging that his former partner, Ms Marfell, was also a leading member. The court also considered mitigating factors, such as Griffiths' guilty plea, which warranted a 15% reduction, and personal factors such as his addiction and deprived childhood, which warranted a 20% discount. However, the court found that Griffiths' remorse was not beyond what might be expected in his circumstances and did not warrant an additional discount. Ultimately, the court determined that Griffiths was entitled to a 35% discount for his plea and mitigating factors. The court found that an uplift for Griffiths' previous criminal history was unnecessary, as the last drug-related offending was 12 years prior to the current convictions.

The court sentenced Griffiths to 10 years' imprisonment for the methamphetamine-related charges and three and a half years' imprisonment for the GBL-related charges, to be served concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. The court also imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of five years, considering the need for deterrence, denunciation, and protection of the community given the scale of Griffiths' offending and his leading role within the drug distribution network.

Orders