R v Harpur
[2025] NZHC 1144
•13 May 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE
CRI-2023-009-7536
[2025] NZHC 1144
THE KING V
BLAKE MICHAEL JAMES HARPUR
Hearing: 13 May 2025 Appearances:
C R Stuart for Crown
K H Cook for Defendant
Judgment:
13 May 2025
ORAL SENTENCING REMARKS OF OSBORNE J
Introduction
[1]Mr Harpur, I am going to ask you to stand please.
[2]Blake Harpur, you have pleaded guilty to five charges1 being:
(a)supplying methamphetamine (representative);2
(b)supplying cocaine (representative);3
1 Mr Harpur had two additional charges being a further charge of possession of cocaine for supply which was dismissed under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and unlawful possession of a firearm to which Mr Harpur has pleaded not guilty.
2 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and subs (2)(a); Crimes Act 1961, s 66—maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3 Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(c) and subs (2)(a); Crimes Act, s 66—maximum penalty life imprisonment.
R v HARPUR [2025] NZHC 1144 [13 May 2025]
(c)possession of methamphetamine for supply;4 and
(d)two charges of possession of cocaine for supply.5
[3] The charges arose from an extensive police investigation, styled Operation Italian Sky, into a multi-million-dollar methamphetamine and cocaine supply network run by the Tribesmen Motorcycle Gang (the Tribesmen).
[4] I am shortly going to ask you to sit again while I explain the sentence I will be imposing on you. This is going to take some time. I will indicate to you towards the end when you need to stand again.
[5]But you may be seated again now, thank you.
Background
[6] I have taken the relevant background from the summary of facts, which you have accepted.
[7] Mr Harpur, you were involved with what is being called “supply line two” in relation to the Tribesmen drug supply network which operated between May and October 2023. The supply line was managed by your co-defendant Andrew Smith. But it was operated under the guise of your businesses, being a towing company and a vehicle detailing business both based in Rangiora. With Mr Smith, you managed the transport of cash from Christchurch to Auckland and the collection of methamphetamine and cocaine using your tow trucks and ferry crossings. Drug deliveries were received and processed at your vehicle detailing business address for wider distribution by Tribesmen co-defendants and by you at a street level.
[8] You are described as being a Tribesmen associate—it is not alleged you were or are a member.
4 Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(f) and subs (2)(a); Crimes Act, s 66—maximum penalty life imprisonment.
5 Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(f) and subs (2)(a); Crimes Act, s 66—maximum penalty life imprisonment.
[9] You received your instructions from Mr Smith and predominantly directed a co-defendant, Tramayne Rauhihi. He worked as a tow truck driver for you but also would act as a driver for you to transport drugs and cash.
[10] Once supply line one was disrupted, your business was also utilised by further co-defendants for the supply of drugs from July 2023. Police estimate the totals attributable to supply line two are 25 kilograms of methamphetamine and 15 kilograms of cocaine.
[11] You met with the vice-president of the Tribesmen and the main beneficiary of the supply network, on at least four occasions, being 13 July 2023 and 7, 15 and 18 September 2023.
[12] On 3 October that year, police arrested Mr Rauhihi as he was driving a truck from Auckland with 1.987 kilograms of methamphetamine and 1.62 kilograms of cocaine. That evening police executed a search warrant at your Rangiora business address and found 130.18 grams of cocaine in your office area. You were then arrested.
Personal circumstances
[13] I have read the documents submitted to me, the pre-sentence report provided by the Department of Corrections, a background report provided under s 27 Sentencing Act 2002, a letter from Red Door Recovery, and the letters from your friends and family, and business colleagues, and yourself. These documents tell me of your background and how you became involved in the relevant offending. They also tell me of your conduct when arrested, your current mindset and your prospects of rehabilitation.
[14] You are now 38 years of age. Your s 27 report provides detail about your upbringing and background. It is unnecessary that I disclose the full background in open Court but from the reports I have read I acknowledge the abuse, the neglect and the bullying you have suffered as a younger person. You are of Cook Island and Ngāi Tahu descent. That said, the report tells me you know little about your Māori culture and heritage. You left school at the age of 14 with virtually no qualifications
and you went on to work full-time and establish businesses. The nature of your upbringing was such that your entry into adulthood was marred not only by a drug habit, but also by a susceptibility to comply, too readily, with the direction of others. The way in which you came to serve the Tribesmen in the drug supply network, through your association with Mr Smith and under his influence, was a natural progression from depending on the Tribesmen for your cocaine supply, to acquiescing in their aim to have you take on the role which has resulted in your convictions.
[15] You met your wife in 2014 and had a daughter together in 2017. You were married in 2022. You have a daughter from a previous relationship but you have little contact with her.
[16] The report outlines how you used drugs as an unhealthy coping mechanism for your earlier relationship breakdown. You have now been residing at Red Door Recovery’s residential facility since February 2024, for help to face your addiction and unresolved trauma issues which contributed to your drug use. You have written positively about your fifteen months’ treatment and therapy and the reference letter from Red Door Recovery corroborates the extensive and positive work you have put in. You have taken accountability for your actions and you display self-awareness about your addiction and a strong desire to change, this is commendable. You have the commitment of the Red Door Recovery team to continue to support you through your sentence.
[17] I acknowledge that you have been working on your relationship with your wife and your youngest daughter and that is a strong motivator for you for change as identified again in the Red Door letter. You have good, abundant support from your wife and also close relationships with others in your family.
Principles of sentencing
[18] The Sentencing Act 2002 sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing that I am required to take into account in sentencing you today. The relevant purposes include accountability, denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation.6 I need to consider
6 Section 7.
the gravity of your offending, the degree of your personal culpability or blameworthiness, and the seriousness of the offending. I have to have regard to the general desirability of imposing a sentence on you that is consistent with the sentences imposed on others for similar offending, which as Mr Stuart has indicated today, is significant in this case because of the others who have been sentenced in relation to Operation Italian Sky. I am required by law to impose a sentence that is the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in all the circumstances.7
[19] In passing sentence, I will be fixing a period of imprisonment that is commensurate with the seriousness of your offending, in accordance with sentencing guidelines for Class A drug dealing, that have been provided by the appellate courts. Broadly, I have to assess your culpability first, by reference to the quantity of drugs involved and, secondly, by the role you played in your offending.
[20] It is important that I recognise the harm that is caused to the community by serious Class A drug offending. The distribution of methamphetamine and cocaine has countless victims within our community: people who often experience the very worst outcomes. That includes adverse mental health, people committing criminal offences purely to feed their addictions, the breakdown of personal and employment relationships, and social deprivation. It is without question that society as a whole suffers from both methamphetamine and cocaine, and it is important when it comes to fixing a sentence for those who see fit to deal in significant quantities of methamphetamine or cocaine that these impacts on society are at the forefront.
[21] There are two steps to sentencing.8 The first step—at this point I will be calculating an adjusted starting point for your offending, that is a period of imprisonment, and it incorporates the aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to the offending itself. The second step incorporates looking at any aggravating and all mitigating features that are personal to you that is beyond the incident itself, together with any guilty plea credit which is to be calculated––these are all done as a percentage of the starting point, as I will come to.9
7 Section 8.
8 Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, [2020] 3 NZLR 583.
9 Moses v R, above n 8, at [46].
Starting point
[22] Before I determine the starting point, I will briefly address the approach I take, an approach which is necessary to consider because your offending involves very significant quantities of both methamphetamine and cocaine. Mr Cook, on your behalf, submitted in the written material he provided to me, that there should be an encompassing of all charges in the starting point because they all arise from the same operation with your role being the same throughout. He submitted I should give recognition to the fact that a number of charges relate to cocaine which requires a lower starting point. I adopt the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in Cavallo v R10 as has also been applied to sentencings of your co-defendants, Mr Smith and Mr Rauhihi, by Eaton J.11
[23] I will fix a global starting point for the total quantity of drugs involved and then make a proportionate deduction to reflect that around 38 per cent of the drugs you are to be sentenced in relation to were cocaine as opposed to methamphetamine. That is an approach that was adopted by the Court of Appeal in Cavallo. The Court held sentencing for cocaine should not exceed sentencing for equivalent amounts of methamphetamine and should generally be sentenced slightly below the comparable methamphetamine starting points. The Court suggested a five per cent lower point for cocaine.12
[24] In your case, Mr Cook has submitted, in his written submissions, the appropriate starting point is 13 years’ imprisonment. He refers to previous cases including that of Smith v R, one of your co-defendants.13
[25] The Crown submits a starting point of 14 and a half years is appropriate. Mr Stuart referred to the starting points adopted for your co-defendant Mr Smith, but also those for Mr Rauhihi and Mr Poa in support of this.
10 Cavallo v R [2022] NZCA 276, (2022) 30 CRNZ 726, at [63].
11 R v Smith [2025] NZHC 140; R v Rauhihi [2025] NZHC 713; and Cavallo v R, above n 10.
12 At [63].
13 R v Smith, above n 11.
[26] Mr Harpur, your lead offending is the methamphetamine offending. The starting point has to be formulated by reference to the guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal in Zhang v R.14 Quantity is an important measure of culpability or blameworthiness because it indicates commercial dealing and harm to the community.15 But the role of the offender, as set out by the Supreme Court in Berkland v R, also is important in assessing those factors.16 Offenders may play lesser, significant, or leading roles and starting points may be adjusted up or down in response to reduced or increased blameworthiness through different roles.
[27] In Zhang the Court set out five bands of offending based on quantity. The quantity of methamphetamine involved in your crimes, at over 25 kilograms, is very substantial and sits well above the two-kilogram entry point for band five, attracting a starting point in the range of 10 years’ to life imprisonment.
[28] Counsel agree that your role places you, in terms of Berkland, within the significant category. However, Mr Cook submits your role was at the lower end of that category while the Crown submits your role is within the upper half of that category. Mr Harpur, your role clearly was significant, you used your legitimate businesses as cover to transport drugs and cash between the North and South Islands and you directed Mr Rauhihi in the chain of command. You were receiving instructions from Mr Smith, who occupied a senior role in the Tribesmen although you were not a member of the gang yourself. You did, however, meet directly with Mr Poa, who has been identified as the head of the operation, on a number of occasions. You were aware of the scale of the operation, you played a key operational part, you were financially rewarded. These factors place you, on my assessment, in the middle of the “significant” category.
[29] I must also consider parity by reference to the sentencing of your co-defendants particularly, in my view, Mr Smith and Mr Rauhihi as the persons who were above and below you in the chain of command for supply line two. A 16-year starting point was adopted for Mr Smith, before an adjustment for the cocaine quantity.17 Eaton J
14 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648.
15 At [104].
16 Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509 at [71].
17 R v Smith, above n 11, at [42].
adopted an 11-year starting point for Mr Rauhihi, which was adjusted down to reflect the quantity of cocaine involved to a starting point of ten years and eleven months’ imprisonment.18
[30] I adopt a 14-years starting point for your sentence, which I consider to be appropriate to recognise the significance of your offending when compared to that of the co-defendants in this operation.
[31] Your previous convictions do not justify any adjustment to the identified starting point. They bear no relationship to the nature of the offending here. The cocaine offending represents approximately 38 per cent of the drug quantities involved and I take five per cent off the 14 years starting point following the Cavallo approach.19 The adjusted starting point is therefore 13 years and nine month’s imprisonment.
Personal aggravating and mitigating factors
[32] Mr Harpur, you have pleaded guilty. Although this was not at the first opportunity, there was then a change to your charges as late as 21 February 2025. Given the large nature of the operation and the extended discussions and revisions by police and prosecutions, a substantial discount is required for your guilty pleas.
[33] Mr Cook submits you should receive total deductions in excess of 50 per cent for your guilty pleas, remorse, rehabilitative prospects, impact of parental incarceration, and other background factors as outlined in the s 27 report, the Red Door letter and the other supporting documents I have received.
[34] The Crown acknowledge your rehabilitative efforts. They recognise they have been real and they do not dispute they warrant a reduction from the starting point. I consider your rehabilitative steps that have been taken over the extended 15-month period in Red Door’s residential facility are substantial and genuine. They have also come at the cost of your personal connection with your wife and daughter. I determine a discrete significant deduction is appropriate and in line with the case law which
18 R v Rauhihi, above n 11, at [46].
19 Cavallo v R, above n 10.
Mr Cook presented to me.20 What the report from Red Door most strongly indicates to me is that you have embraced the opportunities that have come your way with rehabilitation. Through what you have achieved to date you show every indication of succeeding and fully breaking away from the situations that have led you into your offending and you will continue, as I have noted, to have Red Door’s support.
[35] What the references from the many people who have dealt with you over the years most strongly indicate to me is that you have a large body of people around you, both in your personal life and in your business life, who will stand by you and support you as you enter the next phase of your life. These matters indicate to me you deserve real credit for your prospects of rehabilitation. And you will now move into a prison situation. I urge you, Mr Harpur, not to allow that big change, which will be dramatically different for you from Red Door, to allow you to be detracted from the steps you have already taken. There will be a period where, because of the different situation of prison, you are not going to have the wrap-around that you have had. I recognise all the progress of the last 15 months and I just urge you to take advantage of every bit of support you can get in prison to continue that path. I commend you for what you have done. I wish you the best in that future rehabilitation.
[36] I have already canvassed the nature of the information provided to me more generally about your background through the s 27 report. It is clear those background factors of abuse and neglect have made you amenable to being susceptible to drug addiction and then, more recently, the influence of others. Ultimately, you did become drug addicted and thereafter became a part of the Tribesmen’s operation. It is appropriate to allow a modest credit for the impact your background has had on your offending.
[37] I accept also that there will be an adverse impact on your seven-year-old daughter from your incarceration. Until your arrest you had played with your wife a full parental role in her life. While you have necessarily been separated from her in the period since your arrest the authorities permit the Court to recognise the impact of parental incarceration in this situation.
20 Berkland v R, above n 16, at [161]; R v Fakaosilea [2024] NZCA 218; and Glassie v R [2022] NZCA 556.
[38] I accept you have also shown genuine remorse. I measure that by the reports provided to me, independently of you, but also from your own letters to the Court. I agree with Mr Cook this warrants discrete consideration and credit, having regard to the extent to which your credit for your guilty pleas also includes a recognition for remorse.
[39] I assess the total deduction appropriate for all your personal and background factors, your rehabilitative prospects, your remorse, combined with your guilty pleas, is 55 per cent.
Sentence with personal mitigation factors included
[40] The sentence will therefore become one of six years and two months’ imprisonment, representing 45 per cent of the 13-years and nine-month starting point, but that is before I give you a credit for the time you have spent on restrictive bail.
Time on restrictive bail
[41] Until early-February 2024 you remained in custody. Then you were granted electronically-monitored (EM) bail to Red Door’s facility on strict terms, involving a 24 hour residential curfew. No breaches of your EM bail conditions have been reported. You are entitled to a further credit for that period which I assess at five months.
End sentence
[42] Your end sentence will therefore be one of five years and nine months’ imprisonment.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[43] Section 86 of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides that the sentencing Judge may impose a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) on a sentence of more than two years’ imprisonment, if the period provided for under s 84(1) of the Parole Act 2002 is insufficient for any of the purposes identified in that section:
(a)holding the offender accountable for the harm done to the victim and the community by the offending;
(b)denouncing the conduct in which the offender was involved;
(c)deterring the offender or other persons from committing the same or similar offence; and
(d)protecting the community from the offender.
[44] The principles and purposes of sentencing set out in ss 7, 8, and 9 of the Sentencing Act are also relevant in determining whether to impose an MPI.21 An MPI, it has been said, “must not be imposed as a matter of routine or in a mechanistic way”.22
[45] As a general rule, lengthy MPIs are properly reserved for cases involving significant commercial dealing.23 However, in Tamati v R the Court of Appeal noted “a sentencing Judge should avoid giving the impression, when imposing an MPI, that credit for any mitigating factors has been erased”.24
[46] Given all the circumstances relevant to you which I have described, Mr Harpur, including your role and the duration of the offending, I consider the level of the finite sentence I am imposing achieves the relevant sentencing purposes. There will therefore be no MPI.
Conclusion
[47]Mr Harpur, would you please stand.
[48] I sentence you to five years and nine months’ imprisonment on each of your convictions.
21 R v Nguyen [2009] NZCA 239 at [33]–[34]; and R v Brown [2002] 3 NZLR 670 (CA) at [34].
22 Zhang v R, above n 14, at [169].
23 At [171].
24 Tamati v R [2018] NZCA 463 at [14].
[49] Each of those sentences will be served concurrently, that is to say, at the same time.
[50] There remains in this Court a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm to which you have pleaded not guilty and counsel are to file memoranda with their submissions as to how that charge should be dealt with.
[51]Please stand down.
Osborne J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Christchurch
Counsel: K H Cook, Barrister, Christchurch (for Defendant)
7
0