R v Marfell - [2022] NZHC 2227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-6031

[2022] NZHC 2227

THE QUEEN

v

SHARON MARFELL

Hearing: 2 September 2022

Appearances:

J N Hamilton and K Whyte for Crown R Laybourn for Defendant

Sentence:

2 September 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

R v MARFELL [2022] NZHC 2227 [2 September 2022]

[1] Ms Marfell, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to charges of supplying methamphetamine (x 7),1 conspiring to supply methamphetamine,2 possession of methamphetamine for supply,3 being in possession of, and supplying, the Class B controlled drug GBL4 and participating in an organised criminal group.5

[2] The most serious charges are those relating to the supply and possession for supply of methamphetamine. Those charges carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The remaining charges carry maximum sentences of between ten and 14 years imprisonment.

Background

[3] You were arrested following the termination of a police investigation known as Operation Oakville. This focused on the supply of Class A and Class B controlled drugs in the Waikato, Auckland and Wellington regions. During the operation, which lasted for approximately 12 months, the police obtained surveillance device warrants that enabled them to intercept the communications of several individuals. One of these was your then partner, Mr Mark Griffiths. He was identified as leading the drug distribution network. The police discovered you were involved with him in obtaining and supervising the supply of large quantities of Class A and Class B drugs.

[4] You assisted Mr Griffiths in a variety of ways. You travelled with him on several occasions to obtain drugs and you then supplied those drugs to others. You sold it both to members of the organisation for the purpose of on-sale and to your own customers in amounts of one gram or more. You offered methamphetamine to these persons for the sum of $400 per gram. You also played a role in the collection of debts owing by persons who had purchased drugs from you and Mr Griffiths.

[5] Below you in the organisation were Ms Keyte, Mr Iakopo and Mr Cole. They reported to you and would obtain supplies of methamphetamine from you. Ms Keyte

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c); and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2A)(a). Maximum penalty: 14 years imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A. Maximum penalty: 10 years imprisonment.
5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c); and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1). Maximum penalty: 14 years imprisonment.

and Mr Iakopo also obtained methamphetamine from you for their personal consumption.

[6] In addition, the group was involved in the importation of both methamphetamine and GBL. As part of this activity you became involved in efforts that were made to uplift a package Mr Griffiths had imported but which the authorities had intercepted. This contained just…

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 Marfell

Details

AGLC: R v Marfell [2022] NZHC 2227
Case: [2022] NZHC 2227
Decision Date: 2 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sharon Marfell was sentenced by Lang J in the High Court of New Zealand following her guilty plea to charges of supplying and conspiring to supply methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine for supply, being in possession of, and supplying, the Class B controlled drug GBL, and participating in an organised criminal group. The court considered the nature and extent of her involvement in the drug distribution network, her role in the operation, and the quantities of drugs involved in her offending. The legal issues included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, applying any necessary uplifts for the remaining charges, and assessing the impact of aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court established that Marfell's offending fell within Band 4 of the guidelines set out in Zhang v R, which relates to the supply of between 500 grams and two kilograms of methamphetamine. Both the Crown and defence counsel agreed that Marfell played a leading role in the drug distribution network, and the court accepted that an eleven-year starting point was appropriate for the methamphetamine-related charges. The court also found that an uplift of two and a half years was necessary to reflect the remaining charges, bringing the overall starting point to thirteen and a half years imprisonment. Marfell's previous convictions for drug-related offences were considered but not deemed significant enough to warrant an additional uplift.

Mitigating factors included Marfell's guilty pleas, entered approximately three months before her trial, for which the court applied a two-year discount. The court also considered Marfell's troubled background, drug addiction, and efforts towards rehabilitation, which led to an additional four-year discount. A further six-month discount was applied for the time Marfell spent on restrictive electronic monitoring bail conditions while on remand. The final sentence imposed was imprisonment for seven years on the methamphetamine-related charges, three years for the GBL-related charges, and twelve months for the conspiracy and organised criminal group charges, with all sentences to be served concurrently.

In summary, the court sentenced Sharon Marfell to an effective term of seven years imprisonment, taking into account her significant role in the drug distribution network, the quantities of drugs involved, and the mitigating factors presented in her case.

Orders