This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:
R v MATTHEW LUKE HODDER [2024] NZHC 459 [28 February 2024]
Introduction
[1] Matthew Luke Hodder, you appear for sentencing, having entered a guilty plea to a charge of attempting to take possession of a Class A controlled drug (cocaine) for the purpose of supply.1 The maximum penalty for that offence is ten years’ imprisonment.
[2] You pleaded guilty to that charge on 15 December 2023, shortly following a sentence indication I gave on 12 December 2023.
Background facts
[3] I set out the facts relevant to the charge to which you have pleaded guilty in the sentence indication.2 Rather than repeat those in full here, the sentence indication notes will be attached to, and form part of these remarks.
[4] To summarize, you and a co-defendant attempted to recover from the hull of a vessel berthed at the Port of Dunedin, two large duffel bags that had, prior to the intervention of the law enforcement agencies in Philadelphia, United States of America, contained 91 kilograms of cocaine, worth up to $27 million if sold in New Zealand. With your co-defendant you had flown from Melbourne to Queenstown, and then driven to Dunedin, after the initial plan to retrieve those duffel bags in the Port of Melbourne, in your home city, had been aborted.
[5] In the small hours of 17 September 2022, you changed into your diving gear, you entered the water at the Port of Dunedin, and you set out to recover the two bags. Despite your best endeavours, the bags could not be located. You returned to shore, your co-defendant sought clarification from those within the criminal enterprise who had direct knowledge as to where the drugs had been secured to the vessel and, with your co-defendant, you then returned to central Dunedin, intent on a later attempt to recover the bags. Unbeknownst to you and your co-defendant, all your movements
1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2); and Crimes Act 1961, s 311. Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
and communications were being surveilled by police and you were arrested in central Dunedin.
The sentence indication
[6] In my sentence indication, having considered a number of cases that had been referred to me by Crown counsel and your counsel, Mr Hamlin, I adopted a starting point of seven years’ imprisonment.3 That is the starting point I adopt today.
[7] Generally, my observation in relation to your offending is this. By any measure this was very serious drug…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading R v Hodder
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Hodder [2024] NZHC 459
Case
[2024] NZHC 459
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Matthew Luke Hodder was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand for attempting to take possession of a Class A controlled drug (cocaine) for the purposes of supply, which carries a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment. The court considered several factors in determining the appropriate sentence, including the defendant's role in the operation, the quantity of drugs involved, and his personal circumstances. The court adopted a starting point of seven years' imprisonment, acknowledging the seriousness of the offence and the substantial quantity of cocaine involved. It then allowed a discount of 20% for the defendant's guilty plea and an additional discount of 20% for personal factors such as his addiction and mental health issues, resulting in a total deduction of 40% from the starting point. The final sentence was set at 50 months' imprisonment, with additional orders for the forfeiture of diving equipment, electronic devices, and cash found in the defendant's possession.
The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the defendant's role in the operation, which was considered to be at the high end of the lesser role category but also overlapping with the lower end of the significant role category. The court found that while the defendant's addiction and mental health issues were part of the complex factual matrix that contributed to his offending, the primary causal factor was his financial distress, which motivated him to engage in the criminal enterprise. The court also recognised the defendant's genuine remorse, previous good character, support network, and rehabilitation efforts, which justified further deductions in the sentence. Overall, the court aimed to impose a sentence that held the defendant accountable for his actions, denounced the conduct, and deterred him and others from committing similar offences, while also taking into account the personal circumstances that may have contributed to his offending.