R v Lidder - [2020] NZHC 1738

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-004-008295

[2020] NZHC 1738

THE QUEEN

v

HARPREET LIDDER

Hearing: 17 July 2020

Appearances:

H Steele and C McDiarmid for the Crown

J D Munro and J N Olsen for the Defendant

Judgment:

17 July 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUFFY J

R v LIDDER [2020] NZHC 1738 [17 July 2020]

Introduction

[1]Harpreet Lidder, you appear for sentence today after pleading guilty to:

(a)importing the class A drug methamphetamine;1

(b)possessing the class A drug methamphetamine for the purposes of supply;2

(c)importing the class B drug MDMA;3 and

(d)possessing the class B drug MDMA for the purposes of supply.4

What happened

[2] In August 2019, the New Zealand Customs Service commenced Operation Manta to investigate the suspected importation of controlled drugs through a New Zealand company; NZ Importing Group Ltd. Between 6 August and 18 August 2019 NZ Importing Group Ltd imported six separate consignments into New Zealand. The first five of these were not examined by New Zealand Customs but the sixth was and was found to contain 469 kilograms of methamphetamine concealed within large electric motors.

[3] You are associated with the importation of the fifth consignment only. You are a Canadian national who arrived in the country on 28 April 2018. Almost a year later on 18 June 2019 you rented a storage unit. On 25 June 2019 the fifth consignment was imported to New Zealand weighing 316 kilograms and declared to Customs to be electric transformers. On 1 July the fifth consignment was delivered to your rented storage unit and signed for by you. You had also rented a truck and on that same day you loaded the fifth consignment onto the truck and departed the storage facility.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(a). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Sections 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(a). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Section 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(a). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(a). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

[4] Between 3 May and 13 August 2019, you made multiple cash deposits into your New Zealand bank account, together they totalled approximately $45,000.

[5] On 5 September 2019, New Zealand Customs and the Police executed a search warrant at your address. You attempted to evade Police, jumping from your balcony onto the roof top of a neighbouring building. You were, however, subsequently apprehended by Police. During the search of your property the Police located among other items, 14.87 kilograms of methamphetamine, 1.998 kilograms of MDMA, a backpack containing cash NZ$56,872.50 and CAD$3,038.00 cash, zip-lock bags, scales and other drug dealing paraphernalia.

[6] On 6 September 2019 a search warrant was executed at your storage unit and uncovered various tools, frequency controllers, a vacuum sealer and gloves, each of which returned positive results for traces of methamphetamine.

[7] It is in relation to this 14.87 kilograms of methamphetamine that you are convicted of both the importation and possession of…

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 Lidder

Details

AGLC: R v Lidder [2020] NZHC 1738
Case: [2020] NZHC 1738
Decision Date: 17 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lidder was heard in the High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry, where Harpreet Lidder was sentenced for his involvement in the importation and possession of class A and class B drugs. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Lidder's involvement in the importation and possession of a large quantity of methamphetamine and MDMA, and the circumstances surrounding his role in the drug-related activities. The legal issues at hand involved establishing the appropriate starting point for sentencing, adjusting the starting point based on aggravating and mitigating factors, applying the guilty plea discount, and deciding whether a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) was necessary.

The court began by setting a starting point for Lidder's sentence, taking into account the quantity of the drugs involved and Lidder's role in the importation and packaging of the drugs. The court found that Lidder played a lesser role in the drug-related activities and set a starting point of 14 and a half years' imprisonment. The starting point was then adjusted based on the totality of Lidder's offending, and an uplift of one year was added to account for the additional charges. The court then assessed mitigating factors, such as Lidder's prior good character, youth, remorse, and the difficulties he would face as a foreign national incarcerated in New Zealand. The court also considered the guilty plea discount, which resulted in a total deduction of 40% from the adjusted starting point, leading to a final sentence of nine years and three months' imprisonment.

The court deliberated on the necessity of imposing a MPI, considering the purposes of accountability, deterrence, and denunciation. However, the court found that a MPI was not necessary in this case, as the sentence imposed was sufficient to meet the purposes of denunciation and deterrence. The court also ordered the destruction of various items found at Lidder's address and storage unit, as well as the forfeiture of a cash sum found at his address.

Orders