Legal Research
Cases
R v Hokai

R v Hokai

Case [2023] NZHC 2113 9 August 2023

Personal Circumstances

Criminal Law

Drug Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

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

CRI-2021-088-002754

[2023] NZHC 2113

THE KING

v

JORDAN JAMES HOKAI

Hearing: 9 August 2023

Counsel:

AJ Goodwin for Crown S Thode for Defendant

Judgment:

9 August 2023

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei. S Thode, Auckland.

R v HOKAI [2023] NZHC 2113 [9 August 2023]

[1]I begin by acknowledging the presence of your mother and sister.

[2] Jordan Hokai, you are for sentence on three charges: two of importing the Class A controlled drug, methamphetamine;1 and one of participation in an organised criminal group.2 The maximum penalty for that charge is 10 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for importing methamphetamine is life imprisonment. That is the most severe penalty under our law.

[3] Your charge arises because of a Police and Customs operation called Freya. The investigation began March 2020 and ended 12 November 2021. It was directed at an organised criminal group that imported, manufactured, and supplied controlled drugs throughout Northland. The group’s drug of choice was methamphetamine. The group also dealt MDMA and pseudoephedrine, Class B controlled drugs. You, Mr Hokai, were a member of that group.

[4] The summary of facts in relation to your offending is somewhat discursive, hence a little difficult to follow. I summarise what I understand to be the key aspects:

(a)You are a friend of, and close associate to, the leader of the group. Because he is yet to be tried, I refer to him this way rather than by name. The leader of the group is a member of the Head Hunters gang. You, apparently mixed with that gang.

(b)You, with others, were at the bottom of the hierarchy of the group. You gained enough money to post articles on social media showing expensive clothing, jewellery, and cars. However, you did not enjoy significant profit from the group’s drug dealing activities.

(c)You were a “gopher” for the group’s leader. You did jobs so he would not get his hands dirty. In so doing, you assisted the group’s activities, which, as I have said, involved the importation, manufacture, and supply of drugs in Northland.

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

(d)On 27 August 2021, Customs intercepted a parcel containing
1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine. The parcel was addressed to “Jordan Hoki” at your home address. The drugs were hidden in a lawnmower and had come from South Africa.

(e)On 10 September 2021, Customs intercepted a second package. It contained 462 grams of methamphetamine. The package was addressed to “Kody Hilton”, again at your home address. It had come from Malawi.

(f)Between 1 April and 3 November 2021, the group “undertook activity in support of a common aim to manufacture methamphetamine on several occasions”.3 You were a runner for the group. You liaised with the group’s leader. You also moved gear between defendants and homes.

(g)Between 27 September and 3 November 2021, the group acquired and…

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 Hokai

Details

AGLC: R v Hokai [2023] NZHC 2113
Case: [2023] NZHC 2113
Decision Date: 9 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hokai was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Whangarei Registry. The defendant, Jordan James Hokai, faced three charges: two of importing the Class A controlled drug, methamphetamine, and one of participation in an organised criminal group. The legal issues before the court involved determining an appropriate sentence for Hokai, considering the severity of the charges, his role in the criminal activities, and his personal circumstances. The court had to balance the aggravating factors, such as the gravity of the drug importation offenses and his role within the criminal group, against mitigating factors including his background, timing of his guilty plea, and early rehabilitative efforts.

Downs J, delivering the sentencing remarks, began by acknowledging the role Hokai played in the organised criminal group involved in importing, manufacturing, and supplying controlled drugs, particularly methamphetamine, in Northland. The court noted that while Hokai's role was at the bottom of the hierarchy, he still played an important part in the group's activities, including acting as a "gopher" for the leader and moving drugs. The court then considered the appropriate starting point for sentencing, which typically ranged between eight and sixteen years for the importation of nearly two kilograms of methamphetamine. The prosecution argued for a starting point of ten years, while the defence suggested six years, citing Hokai's limited sophistication and position within the group.

After evaluating the arguments and evidence, Downs J decided on a starting point of eight years, acknowledging Hokai's lesser role but also his significant contribution to the group's operations. The judge deducted 15% for Hokai's guilty plea and another 15% for his background and early rehabilitative efforts, resulting in a total deduction of 30% from the starting point. This led to a final sentence of five years and seven months' imprisonment for the drug importation charges, with an additional four years for the organised criminal group charge, which would run concurrently, maintaining the effective sentence at five years and seven months.

The final orders of the court were that Hokai would serve five years and seven months’ imprisonment for the charges of importing methamphetamine and participation in an organised criminal group, with the sentences running concurrently. The judge expressed hope for Hokai's future rehabilitation and dismissed the other charges referred to during the proceedings.

Orders