R v MacDonald - [2015] NZHC 2887

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE NAME OF VYELLA APAAPA IN THE CONTEXT OF ANY REPORTING OF THE SENTENCING, IN NEWS MEDIA, OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF

VYELLA APAAPA’S TRIAL IN CRI-2014-019-4813. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT AND LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-019-4813

[2015] NZHC 2887

THE QUEEN

v

BIANCA AROHA MACDONALD

Hearing: 19 November 2015

Counsel:

J N Foster for Crown C D Bean for prisoner

Judgment:

19 November 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF KATZ J

Solicitors: Almao Douch, Crown Solicitor, Hamilton Counsel: C Bean, Hamilton

R v MACDONALD [2015] NZHC 2887 [19 November 2015]

Introduction

[1] Ms MacDonald, you appear for sentence today on three charges of supplying methamphetamine (one representative), one representative charge of offering to supply methamphetamine, and one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply. The maximum penalty for each of these charges is life imprisonment.

Background

[2] You were arrested as part of an investigation code named Operation Fremont, undertaken by the Waikato Police Organised Crime Squad, into the supply of methamphetamine by patched members and associates of the Mongrel Mob.

[3] During their investigations the police identified certain individuals who were working together to supply methamphetamine. You were identified as one of those individuals. All of the other individuals identified have now pleaded guilty and been sentenced, apart from Vyella Apaapa, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges against her and faces trial next year.

[4] You were involved in supplying methamphetamine from an address in Hamilton, where you lived with Ms Apaapa. The summary of facts which sets out the basis on which you pleaded guilty indicates that Ms Apaapa had the primary role, in that she sourced and organised the sale of methamphetamine from that address. You assisted her, by travelling to various locations, picking up wholesale quantities of methamphetamine to on sell to customers, and assisting generally in sales.

[5] The Police have been unable to quantify the exact amounts of methamphetamine sold from the Hamilton address. However, from 1 November 2013 until 9 April 2014 evidence from intercepted texts and other communications indicates that there were 54 occasions on which you used the telephone to arrange transactions resulting in the supply of methamphetamine. The total methamphetamine involved was 12.8 grams, across 52 traceable transactions. You also made offers to supply methamphetamine on 33 occasions, involving a total of 13.6 grams.

[6] As well as sales organised by telephone, your Hamilton house operated as a retail base for selling methamphetamine. On 29 March 2014 an undercover police officer went to the house and purchased a bag of methamphetamine, comprising
0.2 grams. Although Ms Apaapa ran the transaction, you prepared the amount requested, and handed it to the police officer. On 5 April 2014, a similar transaction occurred in which the same officer came to the house and purchased 0.1 grams of methamphetamine. On that occasion Ms Apaapa prepared the amount requested, and you requested the money.

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 MacDonald

Details

AGLC: R v MacDonald [2015] NZHC 2887
Case: [2015] NZHC 2887
Decision Date: 19 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bianca Aroha MacDonald was sentenced by Katz J in the High Court of New Zealand for multiple charges of supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine, as well as possession of methamphetamine for supply. The case involved a methamphetamine supply operation linked to the Mongrel Mob, with MacDonald acting as an assistant to Vyella Apaapa, who managed the operation. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence considering the gravity of the crimes, MacDonald's role, and the need for consistency with sentences of other offenders in similar cases.

The legal issues included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the quantity of drugs involved, MacDonald's role in the operation, and the need for parity with other offenders in Operation Fremont. The court also had to consider mitigating factors such as MacDonald's guilty pleas, though entered later than the first reasonable opportunity, and her efforts to turn her life around while in custody.

Katz J set a starting point of four years and six months imprisonment, considering MacDonald's role as an assistant in a commercial methamphetamine operation. The court applied a 15% discount for MacDonald's guilty pleas, resulting in a final sentence of three years and ten months imprisonment for each charge, to run concurrently. Katz J also issued an order prohibiting the publication of Vyella Apaapa's name in media reports to protect her fair trial rights.

Orders