R v H HC Auckland CRI 2007-004-18646

[2009] NZHC 1764

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2007-004-18646

THE QUEEN

v

H

Hearing:         19 - 22 May 2009

Appearances: W Cathcart and A Pollett for the Crown

C Wilkinson-Smith and L Wansbrough for the prisoner

Judgment:      4 June 2009 at 4.30pm

JUDGMENT OF STEVENS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 4 June 2009 at 4.30pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, PO Box 2213, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140

C Wilkinson-Smith, PO Box 276 167, Manukau City 2241

R V H HC AK CRI 2007-004-18646  4 June 2009

Introduction

[1]      In 2007, the Auckland Metro Drug Squad began an investigation into the drug  dealing  activities  of  H    (the  prisoner)  from  an  address  at

352A Kohimarama   Road   in   Auckland.      Code-named   Operation   Texas,   the investigation centred on the sale and distribution of the Class A controlled drug, methamphetamine,  the  Class  B  controlled  drug  MDMA,  commonly  known  as ecstasy, and the Class B controlled drug gamma-hydroxybutrate, commonly known as GHB.  Operation Texas included an electronic surveillance phase at the prisoner’s address, which was conducted between 30 July 2007 and 28 August 2007.  Visual surveillance was conducted on the address.  Interception warrants were also granted in respect of various telephones attributed to the prisoner.

[2]      The operation terminated when drug squad officers searched the prisoner’s address and arrested him on 28 August 2007.  Several associates had already been arrested and charged with drug dealing offences and other associates were arrested later.   On 6 May 2009, the prisoner pleaded guilty to representative charges of supplying, offering to supply, possession for supply and conspiracy to supply the Class A controlled drug, methamphetamine and the class B controlled drugs MDMA and GHB.

[3]      The  Crown  summary (Appendix  A)  referred  to  certain  aggravating  facts concerning the offending.   Some of these aggravating facts were disputed by the prisoner.   When the pleas of  guilty were  entered,  Lang J  indicated pursuant to s 24(2)(a)  of  the  Sentencing  Act  2002  (the  Act)  that  the  areas  of  dispute  were “matters…relevant to, and likely to have significance in respect of, the sentence that will be imposed on Mr H  ”.

[4]      In essence, the dispute in respect of the methamphetamine charges concerned whether the discussions and transactions related  to  ounces  of  methamphetamine rather than grams.   With respect to the charges involving MDMA, the prisoner alleged that the discussions and transactions did not relate to MDMA tablets, but rather BZP party pills.  In respect of the GHB charges, the only issue in dispute was whether certain references in text messages related to GHB or some other product.

As a result of such disputes, a three-day hearing was held to enable the parties to adduce evidence.   The Court must now decide whether the disputed aggravating facts advanced by the Crown have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[5]      The challenges to the Crown summary went through various refinements both before and during the disputed facts hearing.  In the end, it became necessary for the Court to determine 14 challenges in relation to the methamphetamine charges and three in relation to the MDMA charges.  Broadly speaking, such challenges were within two of the three categories of dispute identified by Lang J.  The challenge in respect  of  the  GHB  summary was  not  pursued  by the  prisoner,  as  his  counsel correctly accepted that the dispute was not material to sentencing.  The remaining 17 challenges are identified in the Crown summary (Appendix A).

[6]     There was no dispute between the parties that the lead offence is the representative charge of supplying the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine. The factual issues to be determined in relation to the lead charge are relevant to two aspects of the offending.  First, there is the question of which of the bands identified in R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA) applies: see [34]. Second, there is the role played by the prisoner and the type of drug dealing operation in which he was engaged: see discussion in Fatu at [22]-[23] in relation to the role of the offender in importation and manufacturing offending. The critical aspect for the sentencing Judge will be the culpability involved in the offending in the light of any proven aggravating fact.

Applicable principles

[7]      Section 24 of the Act relevantly provides:

Proof of facts

(1)   In determining a sentence or other disposition of the case, a court—

(a)may accept as proved any fact that was disclosed by evidence at the hearing or trial and any facts agreed on by the prosecutor and the offender; and

(b)   must  accept  as  proved  all  facts,  express  or  implied,  that  are essential to a plea of guilty or a finding of guilt.

(2)   If a fact that is relevant to the determination of a sentence or other disposition of the case is asserted by one party and disputed by the other,—

(a)   the court must indicate to the parties the weight that it would be likely to attach to the disputed fact if it were found to exist, and its significance to the sentence or other disposition of the case:

(b)if a party wishes the court to rely on that fact, the parties may adduce evidence as to its existence unless the court is satisfied that sufficient evidence was adduced at the hearing or trial:

(c)the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of any disputed aggravating fact, and must negate [beyond a reasonable  doubt]  any  disputed  mitigating  fact  raised  by  the defence (other than a mitigating fact referred to in paragraph (d)) that is not wholly implausible or manifestly false:

(d)the  offender  must  prove  on  the  balance  of  probabilities  the existence of any disputed mitigating fact that is not related to the nature of the offence or to the offender's part in the offence:

(e)either party may cross-examine any witness called by the other party.

(3)   For the purposes of this section,—

aggravating fact means any fact that—

(a)   the prosecutor asserts as a fact that justifies a greater penalty or other outcome than might otherwise be appropriate for the offence; and

(b) the court accepts is a fact that may, if established, have that effect on the sentence or other disposition of the case

…

[8]      The statutory definition of a mitigating fact has been omitted because the issue did not arise during the hearing.   Mr Wilkinson-Smith, for the prisoner, expressly acknowledged that the prisoner was not advancing any mitigating fact of the type identified in s 24(2)(c) of the Act, namely, in relation to the nature of the offences or the prisoner’s part in them.

[9]      The approach required at such a disputed facts hearing is as follows.  First, the Judge must accept as proved all facts, express or implied, that are essential to a plea of guilty: see s 24(1)(b) of the Act and R v Bryant [1980] 1 NZLR 264 (CA) at

269.  Second, the Judge may accept as proved any facts agreed on by the prosecutor and the offender: see s 24(1)(a).   This applies to the undisputed portions of the

Crown summary.   Where facts remain in dispute, the Court must indicate to the parties the weight it would be likely to attach to the disputed fact and its significance to the sentence: see s 24(2)(a).  This aspect was addressed by Lang J when the pleas of guilty were taken.  Next, if the prosecutor wishes to rely on a disputed aggravating fact, the prosecutor must prove its existence beyond reasonable doubt: see s 24(2)(c). Evidence as to the existence of such fact may be adduced at a hearing: see s 24(2)(b). Further,  either  party  may  cross-examine  any  witness  called  at  the  hearing:  see

24(2)(e).  Finally, the Court must determine whether the prosecutor has proved the existence of any disputed aggravating fact beyond reasonable doubt.

Evidence called at hearing

[10]     Two witnesses were called at the hearing.  The first was Detective Williams. He was the evidential transcriber of all of the intercepted communications, including text   messages,   telephone   conversations   and   audio   conversations   within   the

352A Kohimarama Road address.  Detective Williams produced two large booklets of the transcripts of all such communications and, where required by counsel to do so, played the conversations during the hearing.  The second witness was Detective Sergeant  Sowter,  an  experienced  police  officer  with  the  Auckland  Metro  Drug Squad.  He gave expert evidence regarding a number of terms used by the prisoner and others in the course of the intercepted communications.  He also described the nature and scope of the investigation, including the electronic and visual surveillance carried out on the prisoner at his Kohimarama address.  The prisoner elected not to give or call evidence at the hearing.

[11]     During  the  hearing,  I  invited  Detective  Sergeant  Sowter  to  prepare  a schedule, exhibit 5 (Appendix B), detailing the amounts of controlled drugs alleged by the Crown to have been referred to in the intercepted communications.   The schedule is in three parts.  The first relates to “methamphetamine quantities alleged”. This provides a total of 314.35 grams.   The second part relates to “unknown methamphetamine  supplies”.     This  summarised  alleged  transactions  where  no quantity can be identified.  The third part relates to discussions that disclose the total sales of methamphetamine discussed by the prisoner and others.  The Crown accepts

that some of the transactions in parts 1 and 2 would be encompassed within the overall totals in part 3.

[12]     In addition to the exhibits already mentioned, Detective Sergeant Sowter referred to further exhibits including a schedule of transactions between 23 July and

28 August 2007 showing expenditure by the prisoner of $9,537.40.   This was in addition to cash found at the address totalling $8,500, of which $1,900 was found on the prisoner’s girlfriend who resided at the address.  Also found in the house was a piece of paper with “ten OZ 11500 = $115,000”.   This was submitted as being confirmatory of a discussion between the prisoner and his associate Mr Austin on

19 August 2007.  The prisoner challenged the admissibility of this latter exhibit, but I am satisfied it is admissible as real evidence from the scene and is relevant in the sense required by s 7 of the Evidence Act 2006.

[13]     Two further exhibits were produced relating to the actions of Mr Austin.  The first exhibit was a hard-covered notebook.  This notebook contained a page on which there was a reference to the name “Robbie” and, then alongside the term “O of imported 11k?”, then “supply 10?”, and “how many?” as well as the words “how much?”.   The other exhibit from Mr Austin is a tick list showing that Mr Austin purchased ounce amounts of methamphetamine which he then on-sold in smaller amounts.  Clearly Mr Austin is involved in the criminal enterprise with the prisoner. The prisoner accepted that there was a dealing link between himself and Mr Austin during the relevant period, but the admissibility of both exhibits was challenged.  I am satisfied that, even though they are merely confirmatory of a position accepted by the prisoner, they are nevertheless properly admissible as demonstrating the actions of Mr Austin in the course of the joint criminal enterprise: see R v Messenger [2008] NZCA 13 at [10] and R v Morris (Lee) [2001] 3 NZLR 759 (CA) at [17]. The exhibits are also relevant in the sense required under s 7 of the Evidence Act.

Proof of aggravating facts

[14]     The Crown accepts that the challenged aggravating facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.  To do this, the Crown relied on inferences to be drawn from the intercepted text messages, telephone discussions and audio recordings of

conversations inside the prisoner’s address.   The relevant intercepted material was identified by Detective Sergeant Sowter in the course of his evidence.  The Crown also relied upon inferences to be drawn from the visual surveillance of the prisoner’s address and the prisoner himself during the investigation.

[15]     A  common  sense  view  is  called  for  in  deciding  what  inferences  or conclusions should be drawn from the evidence.  The question is whether there is a factual basis and a logical process which leads to a conclusion from other proven facts, thus enabling inferences to be drawn.  In this connection, it is appropriate to consider the surrounding evidence that I find to be reliable and ask whether it is safe, logical and rational to draw the conclusion contended for.  Finally, it must be logical and rational and must never be speculation or guesswork.   I bear in mind that, in relation  to  any  aspect  of  proof  of  the  alleged  aggravating  features,  where  the evidence would support two conclusions of similar weight, to then choose between them  would  be  to  guess,  which  is  not  permissible:  see  R  v  Puttick  (1985)

1 CRNZ 644 (CA) at 647.

[16]     This is a case where the Crown relied on  circumstantial  evidence.    The Crown pointed to the surrounding context and background emerging from all of the intercepted material and the surveillance described by Detective Sergeant Sowter between 30 July and 28 August 2007.  I also remind myself of the standard direction on circumstantial evidence and note that it is the cumulative effect of the evidence that is important.  The test must therefore be whether there is such a combination of facts and circumstances that enable me to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Crown has proved the challenged aggravating facts.

[17]     This is a case where the prisoner put the Crown to proof in respect of the aggravated facts relied upon.   In his submissions for the prisoner, Mr Wilkinson- Smith put forward a number of propositions which he contended showed reasonable doubt regarding the aggravating facts in question.  From time to time both in cross- examination and in submissions, counsel for the prisoner put forward possible alternative  inferences,  for  example,  contending  that  the  prisoner  was  dealing  in grams rather than ounces and contending that the tablets were BZP rather than MDMA.

[18]     In this context I remind myself of the approach to be taken by the Judge as described by the Court of Appeal in R v Seekamut CA82/03 10 July 2003.  There, Anderson J in hearing an appeal in relation to the argument that the verdicts were unreasonable stated at [21]:

Counsel has raised many possible alternative inferences consistent with innocence, and has argued that those inferences must be preferred. If on an objective basis that has regard to all the circumstances, a rational alternative to guilt is not excluded, there must for that reason be a reasonable doubt. But the mere fact that some  of  the  circumstances  might  arguably permit  an inference inconsistent with guilt is not enough. The jury’s function is to assess the  whole  of  the  evidence and in  so doing may conclude  that  a suggested alternative is not reasonably tenable. In light of this reality Counsel’s submissions are unpersuasive. The circumstantial evidence in this case was entirely adequate to support a verdict of guilty.

General submissions for the prisoner

[19]     Mr Wilkinson-Smith acknowledged that the critical issue with regard to the methamphetamine charges is whether the lead charge fell within band 2, as the prisoner contends, or between the top of band 3 and the bottom of band 4 as the Crown contends.   Counsel submitted that the best indication of the scale of the operation which the prisoner conducted was the items found at his address when Operation Texas terminated on 28 August 2007.  Counsel accepted that the prisoner left the address infrequently and conducted his drug dealing operations from the address.   Thus, he submitted that the items the Police found there were the best means of interpreting the content of the intercepted material.

[20]     Counsel relied on a number of factors.   First, there was only $6,500 cash belonging to the prisoner out of a total of $8,500 in cash found at the address.  This was consistent with a smaller scale of dealing operation than that contended for by the Crown.  Second, the controlled drugs found at the address included 0.04 grams of methamphetamine, 1040 MDMA tablets, 550 BZP tablets, two amounts of 5.4 grams and 0.08 grams of MSM bulking agent, and a snaplock bag containing 19.8 grams of rock salt which had the appearance of being one ounce of methamphetamine.

[21]     Having referred to the items found at the address, counsel then referred to an audio conversation of a discussion between the prisoner and one of his customers known as Dan on 27 August 2007, the day before the prisoner was arrested:

HAARHAUS     What else were you after?

DanUm I was…I was just gonna (phonetic) see if you could do a couple of grams but …

HAARHAUS     …I’ve only got… Dan   …(cuts over) aye?…

HAARHAUS     …I’ve only got the um ‘O zees’ (phonetic).

Dan                 Yeah.  Not many people have got it aye, at the moment? HAARHAUS  No.  I ………………..

Dan                 Like there…there was a little burst of ‘ice’ for a bit. HAARHAUS   Yeah I got five ‘O zees’ (phonetic)…

Dan                 …(cuts over) yeah…

HAARHAUS     …three weeks ago and um that…that dried up

Dan                 Yeah (pause)

And then…and did they just…that…that…that was it they were all gone.

HAARHAUS     it fucken went fast man.

…

HAARHAUS     Mmm (pause) the…thing is that my…my um Asian guy… Dan   …yeah…

HAARHAUS     …has got a whole heap for me. Dan      Yeah.

HAARHAUS     (pause)…I’ve just got a bad feel on this next one. Dan     Was um…

HAARHAUS     …(cuts over)… all…all the signs are in there not to get… Dan     Yeah yeah

HAARHAUS     and it’s not worth the gambling.

Dan                 Yeah

HAARHAUS     Like, Asian Anna has just been done. Dan        What?  What?

HAARHAUS     Asian Anna.

Dan                 Yeah, has she been done?

…

[22]     Counsel submitted that a possible interpretation of the reference to “I’ve only got the um Ozees” was a reference to what the prisoner had there at the address at the time and that what Dan was being shown was a package containing the 19.8 grams of rock salt.

[23]  I am satisfied that the topic of conversation being discussed was methamphetamine and that  the reference to  “I’ve only got  the um  Ozees” is  a reference to the prisoner having access to methamphetamine in amounts of an ounce. The prisoner and Dan discussed the previous situation pertaining to “ice” (methamphetamine) with reference to the prisoner having acquired “five ozees three weeks ago”, all of which had dried up.  I am satisfied that the reference to the “Asian guy” was a reference to another of the prisoner’s suppliers, namely the driver of the vehicle 1KOOL1.   I do not accept that the conversation carries the possible interpretation contended for by the prisoner that Dan was being referred to a 19.8 gram bag of rock salt.

[24]   The third general point advanced by the prisoner was that there were “numerous” examples of the prisoner dealing at the one gram level.   However, if reference is made to exhibit 5, various transactions described in part 1 demonstrate that up until 17 August 2007 only three out of 13 transactions were at the gram level. I am satisfied on the totality of the evidence to which I shall refer in more detail later, that the conversations bear the interpretation contended for in the Crown summary.

[25]     It is correct that the transactions listed from 18 August 2007 are mostly at the gram level.   But it is also apparent from the intercepted conversations that the prisoner had rapidly sold the significant quantities of methamphetamine which he

held during the period of the first two weeks of August and was by then looking for alternative supplies.  As his stocks were running low, the prisoner had no alternative but to deal in smaller amounts apart from the transaction on 20 August where he spoke of acquiring a “quarter of an O”, namely, a quarter of an ounce of methamphetamine.

[26]     The  next   general   point   was   that   what   was   said   in   the   intercepted conversations involved some big-noting or bragging by the prisoner during casual or social conversations, some of which involved methamphetamine being smoked. Counsel submitted that the prisoner was prone to exaggeration and tended to show off to other users or persons to whom he sold methamphetamine.  Similarly, counsel submitted that this was evident from the conversation between the prisoner and an unknown person on 4 August 2007 when he said:

cause I’m gonna get the record cause I sold two to day…I sold two Ozees

(phonetic) today and I’m just doing ano…one now…”.

[27]     I accept that there may well at times have been an element of the prisoner bragging or showing bravado with his associates, particularly when they were engaged in smoking methamphetamine.  However, I must have regard to all of the intercepted conversations and other transactions, which I find establish proof beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoner’s comments were in general indicative of what actually occurred.  An example is the discussion between the prisoner and “Sam” on

19 August 2007 when he said:

HAARHAUS     (whispers) I got…I got twenty five ozed’s (phonetic) two weeks ago and it’s all gone. Mmm.

[28]     A further general submission was that the prisoner deliberately tried to cheat or rip off his purchasers and associates by selling rock salt as methamphetamine and BZP  as  MDMA.    Counsel  advanced  this  submission  accepting  that  this  would involve the prisoner making extraordinary profits dishonestly, and despite risks to his ongoing drug operation and his personal safety.

[29]     I do  not  accept  this  submission.    It  is  far-fetched  and  lacks  evidentiary foundation.  There is clear evidence that the prisoner was concerned for his safety.

For  example,  he  embarked  on  a  transaction  involving 500  MDMA  tablets  to  a contact from Christchurch.  When the prisoner’s associate Mr Sandford said that he had never met the contact before because she had just flown up from Christchurch, the  prisoner  expressed  concern  noting  that  “she  could  be  an  undercover”.    In addition, there are numerous references in the intercepted communication indicating the prisoner’s paranoia about his safety.  He required his purchasers to come to the property alone and to park up the road when doing so, thereby demonstrating a concern to mitigate the risks to himself and his drug dealing operation.

[30]     As  a  further  general  submission,  counsel  referred  to  the  difficulties  the prisoner had in obtaining supplies of methamphetamine after 17 August 2007.  He also referred to uncertainties regarding the quality of the product the prisoner sold. He acknowledged that the prisoner dealt in two types of methamphetamine, namely imported (ice) and local product.  I accept that these are features of the evidence and the overall context.

[31]   These general points do not really advance the prisoner’s fundamental contention that he was only intermittently an ounce dealer and generally traded in gram lots or lower.  The evidence of transactions in the first two weeks of August paints an entirely different picture, bearing in mind the totality of the evidence obtained during the investigation.

[32]     Counsel for the prisoner also submitted that some of the evidence in the intercepted communications should be excluded as unreliable statements pursuant to s 28 of the Evidence Act.  As an example, counsel referred to a discussion with an associate called Sam on 19 August 2007.  The transcript refers on several occasions to “sound of a lighter being flicked”.  Detective Sergeant Sowter acknowledged that this was likely to indicate that the prisoner and Sam were engaging in the smoking of methamphetamine at the time.   He also acknowledged that the prisoner was, throughout the course of the investigation, a user of methamphetamine.

[33]     With respect to the requirements in s 28 of the Evidence Act, I am not satisfied that the prisoner has raised a satisfactory evidential foundation to exclude the statements which occurred during such conversations.   The prisoner did not

advance any evidence, apart from generalised observations, not relating to the prisoner, given by Detective Sergeant Sowter in evidence.   Section 28(4)(a) was relied upon by counsel, who argued that the pertinent physical, mental or psychological condition of the defendant was relevant to the question of reliability under s 28(2).  I am not satisfied that the prisoner has raised any pertinent physical, mental or psychological condition of the type referred to in s 28(4)(a) such that the statements should be excluded on the basis of unreliability.

The detailed challenges

[34]     The 17 challenges may be identified with reference to the underlined portions of the Crown summary.  The challenges are numbered sequentially in the summary.

Challenge 1

[35]     This  challenge  relates  to  the  conversation  with  the  unknown  person  on

4 August 2007, the detail of which is set out at [26] above. I accept the evidence of Detective Sergeant Sowter that the term “ozees” is a common drug slang term for ounces. This was not disputed by the prisoner. Rather, he disputed that what was being referred to was methamphetamine. I am satisfied that the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt on the totality of the evidence that what was being referred to by the prisoner was the controlled drug methamphetamine. The reasons for this conclusion will emerge from the totality of the evidence including that considered in relation to subsequent challenges.

Challenges 2 and 6

[36]     Challenge   2   relates   to   a   series   of   text   messages   and   telephone communications between the prisoner and Ms Ngo during the early part of the interception period.  Counsel for the prisoner accepted that the product referred to was methamphetamine, but contended that the term “one” meant a gram quantity rather than an ounce.  I am satisfied from the communications and the surrounding evidence  that  the  Crown has  proved  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  Ms  Ngo  on

4 August purchased one ounce of methamphetamine.  The purchase by Ms Ngo of

methamphetamine in ounce lots is supported by a text message in the early hours of

4 August 2007 and ensuing text messages later that day.  These text messages make it clear that Ms Ngo was to call over to the prisoner’s address to uplift that one ounce.    This  was  just  after  the  prisoner’s  communication,  prior  to  speaking  to Ms Coddington about having sold two ozees that day and just packaging up a third.

[37]     This was also confirmed following the arrest of Ms Ngo on 17 August 2007. On that occasion she had made a request to the prisoner to come over and get her “usual”.  In the ensuing conversation, the prisoner was apologetic and indicated that all he had was a quarter that she could have for $3,750.   I accept the evidence of Detective Sergeant Sowter that this price is consistent with a street level sale of a quarter of an ounce, or approximately seven grams, of methamphetamine.  Ms Ngo then went to the prisoner’s address, spent some time there and, after setting off in her vehicle, was stopped in Tamaki Drive.  A subsequent search of the vehicle located a bag containing a quarter of an ounce of methamphetamine, being an amount consistent with what she and the prisoner had earlier spoken of.  Accordingly, the last conversation with the prisoner requesting her “usual” linked back to her earlier text messages seeking to obtain “one”, from which it may be inferred that she was requesting an ounce of methamphetamine.

[38]     Challenge  6  also  relates  to  the  prisoner’s  dealings  with  Ms  Ngo.    This challenge is again as to whether what Ms Ngo was requesting was one ounce of methamphetamine.   I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was,  for  the reasons already discussed above.

Challenge 3 and 5

[39]     Challenge 3 relates to whether the text exchange between the prisoner and his associate Mr Pitman-Te Tai on 6 August 2007 referred in coded talk to the purchase by the prisoner of a quantity of methamphetamine from another source.   This challenge is considered together with challenge 5, which concerns a transaction following text messages and telephone conversations with Mr Pitman-Te Tai, which resulted in the purchase of five ounces of methamphetamine.

[40]     The first exchange occurred by text messages on 6 August.  Mr Pitman-Te

Tai sent a text to the prisoner:

Hey bro r u goin with stan tramping this wknd?   U wana borrow my rockclimbing boots? Their new

[41]     The prisoner replied within ten minutes as follows:

@ just got some from stirking sports for $120 on special.  I did a 10km hike last week and another 10 km this week.   I’ve been doing a lot of running and t@raining

[42]     Detective Sergeant Sowter concluded that this exchange involved a personal code being used by the prisoner and Mr Pitman-Te Tai.  I agree with this analysis. The texts were unusual in that Mr Pitman-Te Tai was offering to lend the prisoner his new “rock climbing boots”.   However, the term “rock” is a common term for methamphetamine.  The text in reply from the prisoner was also unusual because the prisoner, according to the surveillance logs, did not go on 10 kilometre hikes or runs. With respect to the reply text, I am satisfied that it is consistent, in the context of a methamphetamine deal, with the purchase of an amount at $12,000, being within the market price range for larger amounts.  The fact that it was a methamphetamine deal is apparent from a later text from Mr Pitman-Te Tai to the prisoner on 9 August

2007, which is the basis of challenge 5:

Hey brada r u stil keen 2 cme on the 5km tramp this wknd in the waitakere ranges?

[43]     The prisoner replied “yes”.  Mr Pitman-Te Tai then sent a text message “Ok brada. Il pop ova later this evening and c ya”.

[44]     Subsequently, the prisoner told others that he had previously obtained five ozees (ounces) and that it had all been sold.  In this context, the text and telephone communications with the person known as “Moses” are significant.  I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the communications between the prisoner and Moses related to dealing in methamphetamine.   The prisoner made a concession to this effect, at least in respect of one gram.  Significantly, on 11 August 2007 Moses sent a text message to the prisoner which read:

BRO U WOULD BELIEVE THE NITEMARE MY MATE HAS JUST PUT ME  THREW  UNBELIEVABLE,  HE  DIDN’T   EVEN  GIVE   ME   A CHANCE 2 TALK 2U FIRST, HE ENDED UP GOING DARK ON THE WORK

[45]     This was followed by another text on the same day as follows:

@IKE U WOULDN’T BELIEVE, I WANTED 2 TALK 2 U FIRST BUT I COULDN’T BECAUSE U WERNT HOME & IN THE END HE TURNED ON ME & LEFT ME STRANDED IN GI DOWN AT NOSH TH

[46]     These texts are followed by a telephone discussion between the prisoner and Moses on the same day.  Moses was obtaining his methamphetamine supplies from the prisoner and the communications confirm that Moses was reporting back to the prisoner that his retail customers were unhappy with the quality.

[47]     It is also possible to infer discontent with the quality of methamphetamine from the contents of a telephone discussion between the prisoner and Mr Pitman-Te Tai on 12 August 2007 when the prisoner reported that he had “two people really angry with me”.  I am satisfied that the context of this discussion related to the poor quality methamphetamine supplied by Mr Pitman-Te Tai about which the prisoner explained that he was “not going to worry about it unless I…unless I get stuck with it…but I’m not stuck with it”.  Accordingly, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was methamphetamine being referred to in the Crown summary in respect of challenge 3 and that it was five ounces of methamphetamine that were dealt in relation to challenge 5.

Challenges 4 and 7

[48]     These challenges turn on what was being discussed between the prisoner and his associate Mr Joachim Dillon and the quantities referred to.  During a telephone conversation on 16 August 2007, the prisoner asked Mr Dillon, the proposed purchaser, whether he wanted to do “a half an hour or an hour?”  When asked for a favour involving a lesser amount, the prisoner expressed annoyance that that was not what he did because there was nothing in it for him and it was a safety risk for him. He said that it stuffs up his whole day and that he did “halves” and “wholes”.  I am

satisfied that this was a reference to half an ounce and a whole ounce of methamphetamine.

[49]     This conversation assists in understanding what was being referred to by the prisoner when he spoke to his associate Moses on 14 August 2007.   The prisoner told Moses that “Jonelle’s boss came over cause he had run out…And he got one too man”.  I am satisfied that he was referring to an ounce of methamphetamine.  Clearly the prisoner is pitching himself to Mr Dillon and others as a dealer in ounce and half- ounce amounts.  This is confirmed when, during the conversation on 16 August 2007 with Mr Dillon, the prisoner said that he can arrange for his associate Mr Campen to supply him with lesser amounts.   There is evidence, which I accept, showing that Mr Campen obtained his supplies from the prisoner and dealt at the retail level. Therefore,  I am  satisfied  that  the  Crown  has  proved  the  content  of  the  Crown summary in respect of challenges 4 and 7 beyond reasonable doubt.

Challenge 8

[50]     This challenge relates to the conversation with “Sam” when on 19 August

2007 the prisoner said “I got … I got twenty five ozed’s (phonetic) two weeks ago and its all gone”.  This statement was challenged on the basis that the prisoner was bragging or exaggerating.  I reject this possibility for the reasons given at [26] and [27] above.   This statement refers to a period of significant drug dealing activity during the first two weeks of August 2007 as demonstrated by the transactions listed in exhibit 5.  The prospect that the prisoner was bragging is simply inconsistent with other proven facts and the factual context generally.

Challenge 9

[51]     Initially,  challenge  9  related  to  whether  the  quantity  referred  to  in  a conversation on 19 August 2007 was grams or ounces.  Although this challenge was not pursued, I have no difficulty in rejecting it in any event.  The conversation with Mr Campen on 19 August 2007 shows is that by this date the prisoner was running low on supplies of methamphetamine.   Mr Campen asked for methamphetamine.

The prisoner made it clear that he did not have a whole ounce left.  The intercepted conversation continued:

CAMPEN        Oh how much…how much have you got?

HAARHAUS     I’ve only got quarters left, maybe one or two and that’s fucken it.

CAMPEN        You got quarters or a quarter? HAARHAUS       Quart… quart…quarter of a gram. CAMPEN       Is it quarter of a gram left (pause) Is it? HAARHAUS        For sale.

CAMPEN        Okay.

HAARHAUS     …coming out of my own purse.  I’ve got…but everything else is gone.

[52]     Put in context with other facts that are established, there is no doubt that at that time the prisoner’s methamphetamine supply had dried up.

Challenge 10

[53]     Challenge 10 was not pursued by the prisoner.  It had no merit in any event.  I note that Detective Sergeant Sowter has fairly included transactions where unknown amounts of methamphetamine were supplied in part 2 of exhibit 5.

Challenge 11

[54]     Challenge 11 relates to a coded communication between the prisoner and Moses on 6 August 2007 and whether the amounts discussed were in grams or ounces.  Viewed in isolation, the communication with Moses is meaningless.   But Moses was a person to whom the prisoner was supplying methamphetamine.  In a text on that day, the prisoner simply stated “small or big brada”, and the reply was “BIG”.   This exchange needs to be seen in the context of the prisoner’s dealing activities as a whole, particularly at that time when he was promoting himself as an ounce dealer.   The fact that a large amount of methamphetamine was involved is supported by later text messages indicating that Moses did not have the money

available.    His  mate was  “only ready with  35%”.    Significantly,  the  prisoner’s operation was on a cash only basis and did not involve credit or “tick” transactions. I infer that what was being referred to was, in context, the supply of a large amount, namely, one ounce of methamphetamine.

Challenge 12

[55]     Challenge 12 relates to a telephone conversation between the prisoner and his associate Mr Mead on 10 August 2007.  I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Crown summary is correct.  This is established in the following exchange:

HAARHAUS     Yeah…but I’m … yeah its all good but I’m not… MEAD (Cuts over) …okay…

HAARHAUS     …not promoting like…we’ve gotta life too.

MEADYeah I know of course, I understand that I’m not…ah I’m not trying to intrude upon it as you know.

HAARHAUS Yeah…but if you guys are only coming for like a quarter…fifteen minutes…then we gonna fuck our whole private night up.  You know what I mean?

MEADYeah I do…but that’s why I asked if you were having a private night I didn’t want to intrude upon it.

HAARHAUS     No…but if you are coming for ah…one hour then that’s different.

MEAD             Is that good or bad?

HAARHAUS      No…if it’s for a whole then that’s sweet…but if it’s just for a quarter of an hour…not really.

MEAD             Oh was for about a half?

HAARHAUS      Oh…ah (pause) just come on your own bro don’t let…you know just come for more.

[56]     It can be inferred from the conversation that the prisoner was an ounce dealer and his discontent with supplying lesser amounts is evident.   Thus, from this conversation and the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that the Crown summary relating to the dealings with Mr Mead is correct.

Challenge 13

[57]     This challenge relates to a conversation with Mr Campen on 4 August 2007. The  issue  is  whether  the  “three”  mentioned  by  the  prisoner  to  be  supplied  to Mr Campen was three ounces or three grams.  This challenge should be seen in the context of an earlier text message exchange two days earlier.   The prisoner sent Mr Campen a text as follows:

HAARHAUS     Big mc donalds meal, or small one?

CAMPEN        The 30 piece pack.  Got a hungry family to feed.

[58]     I am satisfied that Mr Campen is in the earlier text message asking for one ounce  of  methamphetamine,  particularly  bearing  in  mind  that  the  prisoner  was known to be, and promoted himself as, an ounce dealer.  The same is probably true about the proposed transaction on 4 August 2007 relating to “three”.  There is doubt about this on the evidence and I am not satisfied that the Crown has proved this amount beyond reasonable doubt.  Thus, I do not take it into account.  However, I note that the quantity of “three” has not been included as an established transaction in exhibit 5.

Challenge 14

[59]     Challenge  14  relates  to  the  amounts  discussed  between  the  prisoner  and Mr Dillon.  This challenge is rejected.  The amounts discussed between the prisoner and Mr Dillon are clearly whole and half ounce amounts of methamphetamine respectively.    However,  the  challenge  is  immaterial  to  the  sentencing  process because the amount of methamphetamine actually dealt between the prisoner and Mr Dillon is not included in the first part of exhibit 5.  It is referred to only as an example of the amounts in which the prisoner dealt.  Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the Crown summary is correct.

Challenges 15 and 17 - MDMA

[60]     This challenge relates to whether the tablets discussed by the prisoner in his conversation with Sam on 19 August 2007 were MDMA or BZP.  The latter was not

a controlled drug in August 2007.  Reference has already been made to the general submissions made on behalf of the prisoner regarding “rip off” sales.   They were rejected for the reasons discussed at [28] and [29] above.

[61]     Turning to the detail of the evidence of MDMA transactions, when talking to Sam on 19 August 2007, the prisoner referred to certain items as “the new ones on the swallows”  He continued:

SAM                The one…

HAARHAUS     …(cuts over) oh the ones that I gave you yeah yeah, have you seen them before?

SAM                Oh yeah. HAARHAUS  But I’m doing…

SAM…(cuts over) um (sound of lighter being flicked)… um kind of a blueish (phonetic) green and it’s got a flat side and a round side, and a little picture… one of those?

HAARHAUS     Um the ones that I gave you today aye? SAM     Nah not those ones ah…

HAARHAUS     …(cuts over) there’s two of them anyway.  The other one was a kangaroo, green kangaroo’s and blue bluebirds. No…not…not with the dome, ya (phonetic) mean with the dome head on them or…?

SAM                …(cuts over) yeah, dome head.

HAARHAUS     Oh yeah nah they’re not…they’re not the ones that I’m doing but…

(talk over each other…) HAARHAUS  Yeah.

[62]     Later in the conversation, the prisoner asked Sam whether he had “tried those green…have you tried one of those bluebirds yet?”.  The pair discussed various types of pills and then the prisoner stated:

HAARHAUS     I’ve sold heaps of those…those trippie (phonetic) ones. SAM     I don’t like those trippie (phonetic) ones.   I just like the

ones…

HAARHAUS      …(cuts over) (lowers voice) I sell…I sell the… the trippie (phonetic) ones, the nikey (phonetic) thing on them.  I do them for twelve dollars for hundreds (phonetic) or ten dollars for thousands. (phonetic) It’s cheap.

…

SAM                shit yeah.

HAARHAUS     But these…these the big earns, I’ve been doing them for twenty seven for hundreds (phonetic), twenty six for five hundreds (phonetic), twenty five for thousands (phonetic), but  I  could  do  them  at  twenty  three  for  thousands (phonetic) if I had to, that’s cheap too, aye?  ‘Cause I know the guy that brings them in he’s…he’s a mate…

…

HAARHAUS      …me to get them at that…at that figure.   I’ve got to get twelve and a half thousand…(pause) … I did that about six weeks ago I’ve already reloaded already.

…

HAARHAUS     I don’t put a…a big margin on, I just put a small and sell it.

[63]     Detective   Sergeant   Sowter   confirmed   that   during   the   course   of   the investigation the drug squad seized a number of MDMA tablets coloured blue/green shading and had the logo of a swallow bird imprinted on them.  These included the seizure of 1040 MDMA tablets at the prisoner’s address on 28 August 2007.  Similar tablets were seized from Mr Campen’s address on 21 August 2007.  When Operation Texas  terminated,  the  same  MDMA  tablets  were  seized  at  the  address  of  a Mr Catalogna who Police allege to be an associate of the prisoner and a supplier of those MDMA tablets.  Further, when Mr Austin was arrested on 15 July 2007, he was apprehended in possession of 25 of the same bluebird swallow MDMA tablets.

[64]     Detective Sergeant Sowter accepted that MDMA tablets and BZP tablets can be very similar in appearance and they come in a vast number of imprinted logos. However, the critical feature in distinguishing BZP tablets and MDMA tablets is the pricing range.  Detective Sergeant Sowter’s evidence, which I accept, is that in 2007 a BZP pill sold in the range of $2.50 up to $13.50, whereas ecstasy or MDMA tablets dealt at street level individually sold for between $50 to $80.  If sold in bulk MDMA  tablets  could  be  purchased  at  around  the  $20-$30  mark  depending  on

quantity.  Therefore, the price at which tablets in various quantities are sold assists in obtaining an understanding of what item was being sold.

[65]     With  respect  to  the  discussion  between  the  prisoner  and  Sam,  Detective Sergeant Sowter referred to a distinction between the tablets with the Nike swish logo on which the prisoner said he did them for $12 for hundreds or $10 for thousands.   Later in the conversation, he differentiated another type of tablet and says of those, which he described as “the big earns”, “I’ve been doing them for $27 for hundreds, $26 for five hundreds and $25 for thousands, but could do them for

$23 for thousands if I had to”.  The context of this conversation is informed by the fact that the prisoner accepts this part of the Crown summary which refers to a transaction with Mr Campen for 550 MDMA tablets on 22 August 2007.  Further, I have accepted that the transaction referred to in challenge 15 with Mr Meikle relates to MDMA tablets, particularly when this transaction is seen in the context of all the other evidence.  I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that what is being spoken of in the latter conversation is MDMA and not BZP tablets.

[66]     There is no doubt that the prisoner was also dealing in BZP tablets.  Indeed, an amount of 550 were seized upon termination.  I have no doubt from the telephone conversations, for example the discussion with Sam referred to at [65], that both BZP and MDMA were being referred to.  Further, the prisoner was well aware of the risk of apprehension and the presence of BZP tablets would provide a possible cover for his involvement in selling the controlled drug MDMA.

[67]     So  far  as  challenge  17  is  concerned,  I  find  that  the  conversation  with Mr Sandford on 25 August 2007 also related to MDMA tablets.  If the proposed sale of 500 tablets had been for BZP, the prisoner would have had no concern whether the purchaser from Christchurch was an undercover police officer.  This is because, as already noted, BZP was not a controlled drug in August 2007.

[68]     Taking all of the conversations and the transactions in context, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoner was dealing in substantial quantities of MDMA tablets.   The seizure of 1040 blue swallow MDMA tablets at his address upon termination confirms that this was the case.

[69]     I note that, in relation to the prisoner’s dealings with Mr Catalogna, Detective Sergeant Sowter referred to Mr Catalogna’s plea of guilty to charges relating to dealing in the controlled drug MDMA with the prisoner.  This evidence relating to the plea was challenged by counsel for the prisoner.   There is no need for me to resolve such challenge to the admissibility of the evidence.  Rather, I put it to one side in considering the facts and do not take it into account.  The conclusions which I have reached are based on the contents of the intercepted conversations and the totality of the other admissible evidence.

The role of the prisoner

[70]     In the light of the above factual findings, it is appropriate to set out my conclusions as to the role of the prisoner in this drug dealing operation.  First, I find that Detective Sergeant Sowter was a credible and reliable witness.   I accept his evidence that the prisoner was the key figure in this drug operation.  He drew the analogy with a supermarket-type situation where the prisoner was supplied with large quantities of a range of controlled drugs and from there was responsible for the on-supply and distribution of such drugs.  The prisoner supplied associates such as Mr  Austin,  Mr Campen  and  Ms  Ngo,  who  acted  as  further  on-suppliers  of  the controlled drugs.   Without the prisoner, Detective Sergeant Sowter stated the distribution to a large number of people would not have been possible, particularly since he engaged in the supply of three different types of controlled drugs.

[71]     I am satisfied that the prisoner was operating at a significant commercial level.   The Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoner dealt in large amounts of methamphetamine.  The statements from the transcripts identified in part 3 of exhibit 5 demonstrate that the prisoner was prepared to deal in ounce lots of methamphetamine totalling at least 25 ounces.  Even accepting that some of those statements could be referring to the same transactions, the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that, during the period covered by the charges, the prisoner acquired at least 700 grams of methamphetamine, being the gram calculation from

25 ounces.  To this could be added any other methamphetamine which he held in stock at the start of the period and other amounts obtained from criminal associates

such as the Asian gentleman who drove a motor vehicle with the number plate

1KOOL1, which was seen on several occasions at the prisoner’s address.

[72]     Such level of dealing in methamphetamine is confirmed by the calculations of approximately 300 grams of sales as disclosed in the first part of exhibit 5.   A number of these sales were accepted by the prisoner and I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt are proved to the level of at least 300 grams.  Part 2 of the schedule refers to other conversations, which I am also satisfied involved the supply of methamphetamine.   The Crown was unable to place a quantity on any of these transactions because the drug squad had been unable to install the audio listening device inside the prisoner’s address until 19 August 2007.   In addition to the transactions listed in the second part of exhibit 5, I accept the evidence of Detective Sergeant Sowter that the surveillance logs show considerable numbers of visitors to the prisoner’s address for short periods of time and in circumstances where steps were taken to conceal their presence.  In this context, I note that the prisoner had no employment or other  source of  income  other  than  the  sale  of  controlled  drugs. Further, he remained at the address for lengthy periods and rarely left the address. This was one of the reasons why the audio listening device could not be installed until 19 August 2007.

[73]     The role of the prisoner in supplying controlled drugs as part of a commercial operation is confirmed by the dealing in MDMA and GHB that he undertook.  I have outlined above my findings that the tablets referred to in the Crown summary dealing with the MDMA charges were in fact MDMA tablets and not BZP.  From the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoner acquired substantial amounts of MDMA tablets.  For example, the prisoner supplied 550 to his associate Mr Campen in one transaction.   In another transaction, he supplied some 300 tablets to another associate.   On yet another occasion, he supplied 500

MDMA  tablets  to  another  associate  for  on-sale  to  a  buyer  who  was  flying  to Auckland from Christchurch to complete the purchase.   The Crown summary outlining the offering to supply MDMA charge also discloses two unchallenged offers to supply MDMA.  I am satisfied that the other examples also involved the sale of controlled drugs and not BZP.

[74]     So far as the GHB charges are concerned, the Crown summary disclosed examples of offers to supply and conspiracy to supply large quantities of GHB.  This is confirmed by the advice from the prisoner to one of his associates Mr Campen that he normally sells his GHB for $2,500 per litre, but that he can supply it to him for

$2,000 per litre.

Overall findings

[75]     For the purposes of the sentencing of the prisoner on the 12 charges to which he has pleaded guilty, I am satisfied that the role of the prisoner as a drug dealer in three controlled drugs was as described at paragraphs [70] to [74].

[76]     So far as the amounts of controlled drugs are concerned, I have considered the three drugs separately.  With respect to methamphetamine, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoner acquired during the period of the investigation not less than 700 grams of methamphetamine.  The reasons for such conclusions are set out at [70] and [71].

[77]     In  determining  the  amounts  of  methamphetamine  involved,  I  have  been careful not to double count some of the references in part 3 of exhibit 5.  Further, I specifically put to one side the fact that it is highly likely that the prisoner had on hand at the start of the investigation stock from earlier dealing in methamphetamine. There was also evidence that he was dealing from, or seeking to deal from, multiple sources.  Again, I have put this feature to one side and only taken into account the clear admissions made by the prisoner that he had acquired an amount of 25 ounces of what I am satisfied was methamphetamine in early August.  In particular, I have not taken into account in the total the five ounces of methamphetamine said to have been acquired through Mr Pitman-Te Tai, the subject of challenges 3 and 5.  This is appropriate because Mr Pitman-Te Tai was acquitted of drug related charges involving the incident in challenges 3 and 5.  Having said that, the likelihood is that the prisoner did acquire considerably more than 700 grams, but that is not to be taken into account on sentencing.

[78]     So far as the MDMA controlled drug is concerned, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoner was dealing in lots of multiple thousands  of tablets.   He would then on-sell to criminal associates who received their supplies from him in lots of multiple hundreds.   The challenges based on the sale of BZP rather than MDMA are rejected for the reasons set out above.  I am satisfied beyond reasonable  doubt  that  the  prisoner  was  dealing  in  the  substantial  quantities  of MDMA outlined in the Crown summary.

[79]     So far as the GHB controlled drug is concerned, there is no doubt that again the prisoner was dealing at a wholesale level.  He acquired his supplies of GHB in multiple litre amounts and then was prepared to on-sell GHB in smaller quantities as disclosed in the Crown summary relating to the GHB charges.

Disposal

[80]     The  case  will  now  be  adjourned  to  a  date  when  the  prisoner  will  be sentenced.   The Crown will at sentencing be entitled to rely upon the aggravating

facts found as proved beyond reasonable doubt, in this judgment.

Stevens J

Appendix A

CAPTION SUMMARY

POLICE  V  Robert Benjamin HAARHAUS

352A Kohimarama Road
Kohimarama

Dob: 10.12.1965 (43) Occ: Unemployed

CHARGE(S)            Methamphetamine

Supply Class A Controlled Drug [Methamphetamine] Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Sec 6 (1) (c) and 6 (2)(a) Penalty: Life imprisonment

Offer to Supply Class A Controlled Drug

[Methamphetamine]

Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Sec 6 (1) (c) and 6 (2)(a)
Penalty: Life imprisonment

Possession for Supply Class A Controlled Drug
[Methamphetamine]
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Sec 6 (1) (f) and 6 (2)(a)
Penalty: Life imprisonment

Conspiracy to Supply a Class A controlled drug
[Methamphetamine]
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Sec 6(2A)
Penalty: 14 years imprisonment

MDMA

Supply Class B Controlled Drug [MDMA]
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Sec  6 (1) (c) and 6 (2)(b)
Penalty: 14 years imprisonment

Offer to Supply Class B Controlled Drug [MDMA] Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Sec 6 (1) (c) and 6 (2)(b) Penalty: 14 years imprisonment

Possession for Supply Class B Controlled Drug
[MDMA]
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Sec 6 (1) (f) and 6 (2)(b)
Penalty: 14 years imprisonment

Conspiracy to Supply a Class B controlled drug
[MDMA]
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Sec 6(2A)
Penalty: 10 years imprisonment

GHB

Supply Class B Controlled Drug [GHB]

Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Sec 6 (1) (c) and 6 (2)(b)
Penalty: 14 years imprisonment

Offer to Supply Class B Controlled Drug [GHB] Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Sec 6 (1) (c) and 6 (2)(b) Penalty: 14 years imprisonment

Possession for Supply Class B Controlled Drug
[GHB]
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Sec 6 (1) (f) and 6 (2)(b)
Penalty: 14 years imprisonment

Conspiracy to Supply a Class B controlled drug
[GHB]
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Sec 6(2A)
Penalty: 10 years imprisonment

SUMMARY

Supplying a Class A controlled drug - Methamphetamine

Possession for Supply of a Class A controlled drug - Methamphetamine

[Between 30 July 2007 and 28 August 2007]

[a]      At approximately 10.02pm on 4 August 2007 the Accused HAARHAUS made a telephone call to an associate of his identified as Rebecca CODDINGTON. Prior to this call connecting the Accused could be heard talking in the background to his partner Jemma WALTON.  [Challenge 1]  In this background conversation the Accused HAARHAUS tells his partner that he is going to break his daily selling record as he has already sold 2 ounces of methamphetamine that day and is currently packaging up another ounce for sale as he was speaking with her.

[b]      At  approximately  1.45am  on  4  August  2007  the  Accused  HAARHAUS received a text message from his associate Anna NGO asking him if she could  meet  with  him  in  order  to  purchase  1  [Challenge  2]   ounce  of methamphetamine. At 2.30am that morning the Accused acknowledged that he could supply her in a reply text message writing "Sweet mate". It wasn't until approximately 10pm that day that NGO requested to come over the Accused's address to uplift the [Challenge 2]  ounce of methamphetamine. In a telephone call at approximately 10.56pm the Accused and NGO arranged for her to come over to uplift the methamphetamine within 10 minutes of that call as the Accused was due out that evening.

[c]      At  approximately  6.59pm  on  6  August  2007  the  Accused  HAARHAUS received a text message from his associate William PITMAN-TETAI [Challenge 3]  who via coded talk advised the Accused that he had a new stock of methamphetamine and asked the Accused whether or not he wanted to purchase some from him. In a reply text the Accused advised PITMAN- TETAI, again in coded talk that he had just purchased some more methamphetamine for $12,000 an ounce, which was a good price. The Accused then advised PITMAN-TETAI that he had sold 10 ounces of methamphetamine the previous week and another 10 ounces that week, but

that he had been working hard to achieve those sales.

[d]      At approximately 1.57pm on 14 August 2007 the Accused HAARHAUS spoke with an unknown male. During this conversation the Accused advised the unknown male that a person he referred to as "Jonelle's boss" had come over to the Accused's house as he had run out of methamphetamine and that the   Accused   had   supplied   him   with   one   [Challenge   4]    ounce   of methamphetamine.

[e]      At  approximately  4.58pm  on  7  August  2007  the  Accused  HAARHAUS received a text message from his associate Jason AUSTIN in which he asks the Accused for 1 ounce of methamphetamine for another person referred to only as "the Godfather". AUSTIN used a common drug slang term when asking for the ounce of methamphetamine by asking for "a circle". AUSTIN

then advised the Accused that he had the money to pay for it. Later that evening AUSTIN went to the Accused's home and uplifted the 1 ounce of methamphetamine from him.

[f]      [Challenge 5]  At approximately 11.02am on 9 August 2007 the Accused's associate William PITMAN-TETAI sends a coded text message to the Accused asking him whether he is interested in buying 5 ounces of methamphetamine off him. The Accused responded in a text message saying that  he  did.  In  ensuing  conversations  with  others  following  PITMAN- TETAI's text message the Accused confirms that he purchased the 5 ounces for $11,500 each and sold all of it.

[g]      At  approximately 1.23pm  on  9  August  2007  the  Accused  HAARHAUS' associate Jason AUSTIN telephones him and asks for a further 1 ounce of methamphetamine for a person he refers to as "the Godfather". The Accused agrees to supply AUSTIN with that amount and AUSTIN says that he will come over to get it.

[h]      At approximately 6.13pm on 11 August 2007 the Accused's associate Anna NGO sent him a text message stating that she will be over in one to two hours and that she definitely wanted the Accused to save her 1 [Challenge 6]  ounce of methamphetamine. In an ensuing series of text messages that day between the  Accused  and  NGO,  NGO  speaks  to  the  Accused  at  approximately

11.23pm telling him that she is coming over now.

[i]      At   approximately   3.38pm   on   16   August   2007   an   associate   of   the Accused's named Joachim DILLON telephones the Accused in order to purchase some methamphetamine from him. In coded talk the Accused asks DILLON if he wants ½ an [Challenge 7]  ounce or a whole ounce as that is the amounts that the Accused deals in. DILLON is only wanting to purchase a smaller amount at which the Accused says that he doesn't do that as there is no money in it for him. He then tells DILLON that he will  contact  his associate  Paul  CAMPEN  and  arrange  for  CAMPEN  to  sell  the  smaller amount of methamphetamine that DILLON is after. Approximately 5 minutes

after this call is terminated the Accused telephones DILLON back and tells him to come to the Accused's house in ½ an hour to get the smaller amount of methamphetamine that he was after as the Accused states that he can't let DILLON down.

[j]      At approximately 10.54am on 17 August 2007 the Accused's associate Anna NGO sent him a text message asking him if she can come over to purchase her "usual" 1 ounce amount of methamphetamine from the Accused or whatever he had left. In a following telephone call by the Accused to NGO he told her that he only had a ¼ of an ounce of methamphetamine left but that she was welcome to it at a price of $3,750. NGO stated that she was keen on getting it and would be coming over soon. After having arrived at the Accused's  address  and leaving later that afternoon NGO  was stopped  by Police and located in her possession was the ¼ of methamphetamine that the Accused had sold to her that day.

[k]      At approximately 5.32pm on 18 August 2007 the Accused and his associate Dan MEIKLE are at the Accused's address talking. During that conversation the Accused sells MEIKLE an amount of methamphetamine just under ½ a gram for $250. During the sale MEIKLE asks the Accused if is that same stuff that he got from him previously. The Accused tells MEIKLE that it is and that it is the very last he has got at that time.

[l]      At approximately 4.33pm on 19 August 2007 the Accused and his associate Jason AUSTIN are at the Accused's address talking. During the conversation AUSTIN is wanting to purchase some methamphetamine from the Accused for his girlfriend and her friend. The Accused tells AUSTIN that all he has left is 1 gram, which he wants to save for his own personal use. AUSTIN presses the Accused to sell him some methamphetamine and finally the Accused relents and sells AUSTIN half a gram.

[m]     At approximately 6.45pm on 19 August 2007 the Accused and an associate only identified as 'Sam' are at the Accused's address talking. During their

conversation the Accused sells 'Sam' a ¼ of a gram of methamphetamine for

$200.

[n]      [Challenge 8]  During the same conversation the Accused tells 'Sam' that he had got 25 ounces of methamphetamine two weeks prior and that he has sold all of it already.

[o]      At approximately 11.10pm on 19 August 2007 the Accused and his associate Paul   CAMPEN   are   at   the   Accused's   address   talking.   During   their conversation CAMPEN purchases a ¼ of a gram of methamphetamine off the Accused,   which   the   Accused   says   is   from   his   own   personal   stash [Challenge 9]  as the rest of his methamphetamine that he normally sells is gone.

[p]      At approximately 2.21pm on 21 August 2007 the Accused and his associate Susan MacINDOE are at the Accused's address talking. MacINDOE is at the Accused's address in order to purchase methamphetamine from him. During their conversation the Accused says that he only has his own personal stash of methamphetamine left but that he is happy to sell it as he is getting sick of smoking it himself. The Accused says that he only has two little .250 gram bags left. At being told this MacINDOE asks the Accused for .4 of a gram of methamphetamine, which the Accused says he will sell to her.

[q]      At approximately 7.45pm on 21 August 2007 the Accused and his associate Dan  MEIKLE  are  at  the  Accused's  address  talking.  MEIKLE  asks  the Accused if he has any methamphetamine left and the Accused says that he has very little. As a result of that response MEIKLE asks the Accused for just a "point" [one tenth of a gram] at which the Accused agrees to supply him.

Offering to Supply a Class A controlled drug - Methamphetamine Possession for Supply of a Class A controlled drug - Methamphetamine [Between 30 July 2007 and 28 August 2007]

[a]      At approximately 7.23am on 2 August 2007 the Accused sent a text message to the cell phone number [021] 02440571 asking the user of that cell phone when they were going to catch up. In coded talk the Accused offers the user of this cell phone an [Challenge 10]  unknown quantity of methamphetamine by saying "How's your fish tank, I've got the new one here for you".

[b]At the same time the Accused also sends the same text message to the cell phone number [021] 2464473, again offering an unknown person an undisclosed quantity of methamphetamine.

[c]      At approximately 2.44pm on 4 August 2007 the Accused sent a text message to the cell phone number [021] 0444275 where in coded talk he advises the user of this cell phone number that he has  some  new  methamphetamine available for sale at $700 per gram and that it is good quality. The Accused uses the phrase "Bloody cold" as a code for the commonly known methamphetamine street name of 'Ice'. He also uses the time "7pm" as his code for $700. The user of the cell phone number [021] 0444275 acknowledges the Accused's offer in a reply text message and says that he will come over. Shortly after, the Accused rings the user of the cell phone number [021] 0444275 and explains to him that the time reference was actually the price for the methamphetamine and also asks this person if they understood his code for 'cold', which this person acknowledges that they got that one.

[d]      At approximately 1.12am on 6 August 2007 the Accused receives a text message from the same user of the cell phone number [021] 0444275 asking the Accused in coded talk when he can get some more methamphetamine off him. The Accused responds in a text message himself asking the user of the cell phone number [021] 0444275 whether he wants a small or big amount, [Challenge 11]  indicating an ounce or gram amount. The user of the cell

messages between the Accused and the user of the cell phone number [021]

0444275  arrangements  are  made  for  this  person  to  come  over  to  the Accused's house once the money to purchase that methamphetamine was arranged.

[e]      At  approximately  11.27pm  on  10  August  2007  the  Accused  receives  a telephone call from his associate Jack MEAD. MEAD asks the Accused whether he can come over in order to purchase some methamphetamine. At this point the Accused tells MEAD that he has a private life and then in coded talk says that if he's only coming over for a ¼ of an [Challenge 12]  ounce of methamphetamine then it's going to mess his private life up but if it's for a whole [Challenge 12]  ounce then it's okay to come over. MEAD says that he wants ½ an [Challenge 12]  ounce at which the Accused says it is okay for MEAD to come over as long as he comes alone.

[f]      At  approximately  9.11pm  on  18  August  2007  the  Accused  receives  a telephone call from an unknown male using the cell phone number [021]

2464473. In coded talk the user to the cell phone number [021] 2464473 says that he is looking to purchase  methamphetamine  from  the  Accused.  The Accused advises this person, again in coded talk, that he only has one gram left at $700 but that it is very good quality. The Accused on this occasion uses  word  "Flounder"  to  describe  methamphetamine  in  this  call.  The unknown male says that he will come over.

[g]      At approximately 1.10am on 19 August 2007 the Accused receives a text message from the user of cell phone number [021] 02440571 who in coded talk says that he wants to get the remaining quantity of methamphetamine that the Accused has left in his fridge. The Accused acknowledges in a reply text message that this person can have it.

Conspiracy to Supply a Class A controlled drug - Methamphetamine

[Between 30 July 2007 and 28 August 2007]

[a]      Throughout this investigation the Accused was supplying methamphetamine to his associate Paul Lawrence CAMPEN so that CAMPEN could on-supply it to others.

[i]      At approximately 10.10am on 4 August 2007 the Accused calls CAMPEN. He this conversation the Accused asks CAMPEN what happened with the "three", which refers to 3 [Challenge 13]  ounces of methamphetamine. CAMPEN says that another person has got back to CAMPEN and said that they got it for $500 cheaper.

[ii]      At  approximately 3.38pm  on  16  August  2007  an  associate  of  the Accused's named Joachim DILLON telephones the Accused in order to purchase some methamphetamine from him. In coded talk the Accused asks DILLON if he wants ½ an [Challenge 14]  ounce or a whole [Challenge 14]  ounce as that is the amounts that the Accused deals in. DILLON is only wanting to purchase a smaller amount at which the Accused says that he doesn't do that as there is no money in it for him. He then tells DILLON that he will contact his associate Paul CAMPEN and arrange for CAMPEN to sell the smaller amount of methamphetamine that DILLON is after as that is what CAMPEN does, the smaller amounts.

Supplying a Class B controlled drug - MDMA

Possession for Supply of a Class B controlled drug - MDMA [Between 30 July 2007 and 28 August 2007]

[a]      [Challenge 15]  At approximately 6.45pm on 19 August 2007 the Accused and an associate only identified as 'Sam' are at the Accused's address talking. During their conversation the Accused is talking about MDMA [ecstasy] tablets that he has available for sale. The Accused explains that he sells his

a good price for his MDMA tablets as he knows the person that imports them. The Accused then goes on to say that he got 12,500 MDMA tablets 6 weeks

ago and he's already had to get more as they have all been sold.

[b]      At approximately 3.08pm on 22 August 2007 the Accused and his associate CAMPEN are at the Accused's address talking. During the conversation CAMPEN gets 550 MDMA tablets from the Accused, which he is going to take into the City to supply to an unknown person(s). Following that CAMPEN states that he will then get another 100 tablets.

[c]      [Challenge 16]  At approximately 8.07pm on 23 August 2007 the Accused is telephoned by his associate Dan MEIKLE who advises him that he will be coming over the Accused's house in 20 minutes. The Accused then asks MEIKLE how many MDMA tablets he is after, whether it is 100, 200 or 300. MEIKLE tells the Accused that it is 300 that he is after.

[d]      [Challenge 17]  At approximately 7.28pm on 25 August 2007 the Accused and his associate Brett SANDFORD are at the Accused's address talking. During their conversation SANDFORD says that a 500 MDMA tablet deal that he is arranging with the Accused on behalf of other persons is definitely going ahead but that an unknown female who has the money to purchase the MDMA tablets won’t be flying into Auckland until two days later. Two days later SANDFORD is back at the Accused's address and asks the Accused to supply him with 2 or 3 MDMA that he can supply to two prospective buyers of MDMA. The Accused ultimately says that he will give SANDFORD 1

MDMA tablet each as a sample for two prospective buyers. Later in the conversation  SANDFORD  arranges  for  a  meeting  at  an  Auckland  City Service Station where an MDMA drug deal can take place. In ensuing conversations between the Accused and SANDFORD they are trying to arrange   to   sale   of   500   MDMA   tablets   to   an   unknown   person.   At approximately 1.56am on 28 August 2007 SANDFORD attempts to contact his buyer of the 500 MDMA tablets and tell them that he and the Accused are on their way.

Offering to Supply a Class B controlled drug - MDMA Possession for Supply of a Class B controlled drug - MDMA [Between 30 July 2007 and 28 August 2007]

[a]      At approximately 4.19pm on 3 August 2007 the Accused receives a text message from his associate Anna WORMALD where she asks the Accused in coded talk whether he can supply her with MDMA tablets. In response the Accused asks WORMALD how many tablets she is after at which she responds that it is for either 9 or 10 people. In response the Accused advises WORMALD that he will charge her $40 each for 10 MDMA tablets or $50 each if she wants any less. WORMALD later arranges to go over to the Accused's house to purchase MDMA tablets.

[b]      At approximately 8.08pm on 3 August 2007 the Accused receives a text message  from  an  unknown  person  using  the  cell  phone  number  [021]

0444275  who  asks  the  how  much  he  charges  for  40  MDMA  tablets.  In response  the  Accused  advises  the  user  of  the  cell  phone  number  [021]

0444275 that it will cost them $35 each per tablet.

[c]      At approximately 9pm on 5 August 2007 the Accused receives a telephone call from his associate Rebecca CODDINGTON. During the conversation the Accused offers CODDINGTON MDMA tablets for lunch, using the common street slang term for MDMA tablets of "lollies".

[d]      At approximately 4.33pm on 19 August 2007 the Accused and his associate Jason AUSTIN are at the Accused's address talking. During the conversation AUSTIN asks the Accused for 10 "Green lollie" MDMA tablets which the Accused had said to AUSTIN would be at $25 each. The Accused tells him that $25 is the price that he charges for purchases of 1,000 lots.

[e]      At approximately 7.07pm on 22 August 2007 the Accused telephones an associate only known as 'Thomas'. During the conversation Thomas asks the Accused to supply him with methamphetamine. The Accused says that he has

will try and find some methamphetamine elsewhere.

[f]      At approximately 4.08pm on 23 August 2007 the Accused and his associate James ANGUS are at the Accused's address talking. During the conversation ANGUS asks the Accused how much he would charge him for several hundred MDMA tablets as ANGUS had someone that wanted some. The Accused says that he would charge him $25 each, which is a really good price. Because ANGUS is unsure as to whether his associate wants some the Accused says that when he goes out that evening he will take 200 MDMA tablets with him should ANGUS want them.

Possession for Supply of a Class B controlled drug - MDMA [28 August 2007]

[a]      On 28 August 2007 the Auckland Police Drug Squad  executed  a  search warrant at the Accused's home address of 352A Kohimarama Road, St Johns. Located at this address was 1,040 MDMA tablets coloured blue and bearing the logo of a 'swallow' bird.

Conspiracy to Supply a Class B controlled drug - MDMA [Between 30 July 2007 and 28 August 2007]

[a]      Between  30 July 2007  and  28  August  2007  the  Accused  was  supplying MDMA to his associate Paul Lawrence CAMPEN so that CAMPEN could on-supply it to others.

[i]      At approximately 7.41pm on 13 August 2007 the Accused telephones his associate Carly RYAN in order to get CAMPEN's wallet back, which RYAN has as a result of CAMPEN handing it to her when he was arrested by Police for driving offences. The Accused also asks RYAN the whereabouts of the "roundies" [MDMA tablets] from out of CAMPEN's car as CAMPEN still owes the Accused  for  them. RYAN says that they are at someone else's place. In a subsequent text

message the Accused sent to RYAN he again is trying to get CAMPEN's wallet off RYAN. In this text message he tells RYAN to give it back along with the 20 MDMA tablets and a ¼ of an ounce of methamphetamine that she has.

[ii]      At approximately 3.08pm on 22 August 2007 the Accused and his associate CAMPEN are at the Accused's address talking. During the conversation CAMPEN gets 550 MDMA tablets from the Accused, which he is going to take into the City to supply to an unknown person(s).  Following  that  CAMPEN  states  that  he  will  then  get another 100 tablets.   Following this conversation CAMPEN was stopped by the Police after he had left the Accused's address. Located in  his  motor  vehicle  was  550  MDMA  tablets  coloured  blue  and bearing a 'swallow' bird logo.

Supplying a Class B controlled drug - GHB

Possession for Supply of a Class B controlled drug - GHB [Between 30 July 2007 and 28 August 2007]

[a]      At approximately 12.36pm on 23 August 2007 the Accused, his associate Pat WALSH and his associate ANGUS are at the Accused's address talking. During the conversation the Accused says that he gave WALSH a 250ml bottle of GHB for WALSH's birthday and that WALSH ended up in hospital as a result of drinking it in one go.

Offering to Supply a Class B controlled drug - GHB Possession for Supply of a Class B controlled drug - GHB [Between 30 July 2007 and 28 August 2007]

[a]      At  approximately  11.49am  on  3  August  2007  the  Accused  sent  a  text message to the cell phone number [021] 1872449 in which he advised the user of this cell phone number, in coded talk, that he had just acquired some new GHB. In ensuing text messages between the Accused and this person the Accused offers them a litre of GHB for $2,000 and says that this person can

grab 2 litres off the Accused if they want. The user of cell phone number

[021] 1872449 acknowledges the offer and says that they will come over.

[b]      At approximately 7.07pm on 22 August 2007 the Accused telephones an associate only known as 'Thomas'. During the conversation Thomas asks the Accused to supply him with methamphetamine.   The Accused says that he has none left and in coded talk tells Thomas that all he has left is MDMA tablets and the liquid GHB if Thomas is interested.  Thomas tells the Accused that he will try and find some methamphetamine elsewhere.

[c]      At approximately 2.11am on 22 August 2007 the Accused and his associate Ally DRAKE are at the Accused's address talking. During the conversation DRAKE asks the Accused how much he charges for his GHB as she is wanting to get some for her associate 'Ross'. The Accused explains that he charges $2.50 per millilitre, which equates to $2,500 per litre and $1,250 per half litre. He further advises DRAKE that if Ross gets 3 litres it's still $2,500 per litre but that if he buys 5 litres then the price drops to $2,000 per litre.

Possession for Supply of a Class B controlled drug - GHB [28 August 2007]

[a]      On 28 August 2007 the Auckland Police Drug Squad  executed  a  search warrant at the Accused's home address of 352A Kohimarama Road, St Johns. Located at this address was 12ml of GHB liquid.

Conspiracy to Supply a Class B controlled drug - GHB [Between 30 July 2007 and 28 August 2007]

[a]      Throughout  this  investigation  the  Accused  was  supplying  GHB  to  his associate Paul Lawrence CAMPEN so that CAMPEN could on-supply it to others.

[i]       At approximately 8.54pm on 20 August 2007 CAMPEN sent a text message to the Accused where in coded talk he advises the Accused

that he has priced up some GHB elsewhere but that it is very expensive. CAMPEN then asks the Accused if he can let him know what price the Accused can supply CAMPEN GHB for per litre quantity. In an ensuing telephone call the Accused advises CAMPEN that he normally sells his GHB for $2,500 per litre but that he can supply it to CAMPEN for $2,000 per litre.

[ii]     At approximately 9.40 on 24 August 2007 the Accused speaks to CAMPEN. During this conversation the Accused asks CAMPEN what he has done with the Accused's GHB, which he calls "drink". CAMPEN advises that Accused that he has it at home but that he has some people coming around.

Conclusion

On 28 August 2007 Police executed a search warrant at the defendants address at

352A Kohimarama Road, Kohimarama.

When spoken to be Police the defendant declined to make a statement.

The defendant is a single male aged 43 years.  He has previously appeared before the

Court.

Date	Transcript	Page	Portion of conversation	Quantity (grams)
2 Aug 2007	Tab 2 – sessions 55, 56	18, 19	Big McDonalds meal, or small one – the 30 piece pack	28
4 Aug 2007	Tab 3 – session 358 (Coddington) Tab 12 – session 268 (Ngo)	12, 14	I sold two Ozees today and I’m just doing ano…one now…can you save me one	84
4 Aug 2007	Tab 28 – sessions 324, 326, 329 and 331 (Moses)	7–13	Got some work, real mean. Bloody cold aye maaate. 7.00pm	1
6 Aug 2007	Tab 28 – sessions 531- 537, 542-544, 602, 604 and 605	20-32	Small or big brada – big	28
7 Aug 2007	Tab 1 – session 686	15	I need a circle for the godfather	28
9 Aug 2007	Tab 1 – session 863	35	same again for the godfather	28
10 Aug 2007	Tab 10 – session 959	6	Oh was for about a half	14
11 Aug 2007	Tab 12 – session 1042	27	ey definitely coming to see you tonight so just save me one	28
11 Aug 2007	Tab 28 – sessions 14-17 and 18	72-86	…he ended up going dark on the work…He ended up getting rid of 25 percent of the work – now you got this 10 thousand dollar thing. Bill with him	28
13 Aug 2007	Tab 2 – session 1141	95	Have got a pie for you	0.1
14 Aug 2007	Tab 15 – session 1182	29	…why has Paul not got his wallet back and the quarter…	0.25
14 Aug 2007	Tab 28 – session 60	89-94	Jonelle’s boss came over because he had run out and he got one too man	28

 

Appendix B Methamphetamine quantities alleged

Date	Transcript	Page	Portion of conversation	Quantity (grams)
17 Aug 2007	Tab 12 – sessions 1341 and 1342	57-59	…can I come over for my usual – I’ve only got a quart left at three seven five o	7
18 Aug 2007	Tab 11 – session upstairs 8	39	So I’ll give you point, say point four	0.4
18 Aug 2007	Tab 34 – session 142	3-4	It’s like one flounder and it’s seven bucks	1
19 Aug 2007	Tab 1 – session upstairs 33	62	I’ll give you that bag back and you can top it up to half	0.5
19 Aug 2007	Tab 2 – session upstairs 53	129	Is it quarter of a gram left is it… For sale	0.25
19 Aug 2007	Tab 35 – sessions 143 and 144	23, 24	That single snapper still in ur fridge as I am gonna have 2 buckle. I want it – yes	1
19 Aug 2007	Tab 36 – session upstairs 39	1	Two hundy – for the quarter	0.25
20 Aug 2007	Tab 36 – session upstairs 65	12	I bought a quarter of an O and sharing it with a couple of mates	7
21 Aug 2007	Tab 9 – sessions 195, 1645 and upstairs 85	25, 27, 31, 35	Hey Rob. Feel like a run? – Only a small one – Oh I’ve only got, like little two fifty quarters – I’ll have four hundred	0.5
21 Aug 2007	Tab 11 – session upstairs 114	50	what were you after – just a point	0.1
21 Aug 2007	Tab 11 – session upstairs 114	53	Last time you bought a quarter, which is like two and a half points	0.25
21 Aug 2007	Tab 11 – session upstairs 115	57	And on top of that you get all these other people ringing, texting, wanting…and half arse quarters. Today it’s been Moses, Paul and who else? Ah Glen, that’s three straight away	0.75
Total	314.35

Unknown methamphetamine supplies

Date	Transcript	Page	Portion of conversation
31 Jul 2007	Tab 14 – sessions 20, 22, 45, 46, 70, 90, 96 and 97	All	Wanna catch up a bit later- hey mate was going to pop around at seven if that suits – can you park a little bit up the road please – I was gonna pop in and see ya – can’t get to sleep – you need better curtains mate and less pie – it was a compliment
2 Aug 2007	Tab 9 – session 61	1	Go for a run today if you’re up to it
2 Aug 2007	Tab 34 – session 173	1	How  is  your  fish  tank  I’ve  got  the new one here for you
2 Aug 2007	Tab 35 – session 172	1	How  is  your  fish  tank  I’ve  got  the new one here for you
5 Aug 2007	Tab 9 – session 143	7	Run
9 Aug 2007	Tab 9 – session 318	10	Hey Robbie. On 4 a run?
9 Aug 2007	Tab 35 – sessions 877, 324 and 879	15-18	U got any
11 Aug 2007	Tab 11 – sessions 1000, 1007, 1008, 1009 and 1010	15-20	Hey is it okay to drop by – Sweet but got no weights – I don’t care if you do it how you usually do it
14 Aug 2007	Tab 9 – session 63	14	Hey Rob. Feel like a run?
16 Aug 2007	Tab 2 – session 91	115	Half please
16 Aug 2007	Tab 4 – sessions 1311 and 1312	8-12, 13	I do the halves and the wholes – I’ll see you at my place in half an hour mate I can’t fucken let you down
17 Aug 2007	Tab 9 – session 125	16	Hey Robbie. Treadmill?

Methamphetamine totality communications

Date	Transcript	Page	Portion of conversation	Quantity (grams)
6 Aug 2007	Tab 13 – sessions 626	5	Just got some from stirling sports for $120 on special. I did a 10 km hike last week and another 10 km this week	560
9 Aug 2007	Tab 13 – session 842	16	Hey brada r u still keen 2 cme on the 5km tramp this weekend	140
19 Aug 2007	Tab 1 – session upstairs 32	42	I’ll take ten at eleven and a half, bring it over, so the guys on his way, came up, he could only get five	140
19 Aug 2007	Tab 36 – session upstairs 39	2	I got twenty five ozeds two weeks ago and it’s all gone	700
27 Aug 2007	Tab 36 – session upstairs 233	31	Yeah I got five O zees three weeks ago and um that dried up	140