R v Jordan - [2024] NZHC 1810

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-009-8205

[2024] NZHC 1810

THE KING

v

ZANE ROBERT JORDAN

Hearing: 4 July 2024

Appearances:

B Hawes and A M Harvey for Crown S N B Wimsett KC for Defendant

Judgment:

4 July 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

Introduction

[1] Zane Jordan, you appear for sentence in relation to two charges of possession for supply of the Class A controlled drug cocaine, to which you have pleaded guilty.1

The offending

[2] Your offending arises out of a significant police investigation into the importation of cocaine into this country from South America. The drug syndicate operated from at least January 2018 to November 2021 and involved the importation of an estimated 42.5 kilograms of cocaine into New Zealand with a street price of over
$19,000,000. However, the offending for which you are for sentence is limited to two

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a) — maximum penalty life imprisonment.

R v JORDAN [2024] NZHC 1810 [4 July 2024]

discrete transactions that involved the internal trafficking of cocaine within New Zealand. You dispute that you were aware of the broader drug trafficking operation. I return to that point later.

[3] On 25 April 2021, you were parked in a motor vehicle in Auckland. Two of your co-defendants got into your vehicle and supplied cocaine to you. They had both travelled to Auckland from Christchurch that morning.

[4] On 11 July 2021, you met again with one of those gentlemen. He supplied you with a further package of cocaine. Later that month, on 27 July, you paid for the cocaine by providing $100,000 in cash.

[5] The total amount of cocaine involved in your offending was between 650 and 700 grams. You were involved in two cash handovers for the cocaine you received — the one on 27 July of $100,000 and another for $114,100 — both of which were in payment for the cocaine.

Approach to sentencing

[6] The Sentencing Act 2002 sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing that I am required to take into account in sentencing you today. Relevant purposes include accountability, denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation. I need to consider the gravity of your offending, the degree of your culpability, the seriousness of the offending and the general desirability of consistency in imposing sentences for like offending. I am required to impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.

[7] In passing sentence, I must fix a period of imprisonment that is commensurate with the seriousness of your offending, in accordance with sentencing guidelines for Class A drug offending provided by the appellate courts.2 Broadly, your culpability is to be assessed by the quantity of the drug involved and the role you played in the

2 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648; Cavallo v R [2022] NZCA 276, (2022) 30
CRNZ 726; and Berkland v R

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 Jordan

Details

AGLC: R v Jordan [2024] NZHC 1810
Case: [2024] NZHC 1810
Decision Date: 4 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zane Robert Jordan was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, for two charges of possession of a Class A drug for supply, namely cocaine. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges which arose from a police investigation into a significant drug trafficking operation. The operation involved the importation of an estimated 42.5 kilograms of cocaine into New Zealand, but the charges against Jordan related to two discrete transactions involving the internal trafficking of cocaine. The court was required to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the quantity of drugs involved and Jordan's role in the offending, and to consider various mitigating factors in determining the final sentence.

The court determined a starting point of seven years’ imprisonment, considering the amount of cocaine involved and Jordan's role in the distribution hierarchy. The court found that Jordan was at the lower end of band four in the guideline judgment for Class A drug offending, but noted that sentence starting points for cocaine should generally be slightly below those for methamphetamine. After considering mitigating factors such as Jordan's guilty plea, previous good character, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts, the court applied a total discount of 25 per cent to the starting point, resulting in a final sentence of five years three months’ imprisonment. The court also granted a forfeiture order for all cash located by police and an order for the destruction of cell phones seized from Jordan's address.

The final orders of the court were that Zane Robert Jordan was sentenced to five years three months’ imprisonment for the two charges of possessing a Class A drug for supply, and that an order be made for the forfeiture of all cash located by police and the destruction of cell phones seized from his address.

Orders