R v Martel - [2017] NZHC 1878

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-009-002757 [2017] NZHC 1878

THE QUEEN

v

RODNEY GEORGE MARTEL RACHEL ROSE VINCENT REGHARDT ROUX
ANTHONY RICHARD DAWSON

Hearing: 8 August 2017

Appearances:

T McGuigan for Crown
R Chambers for R G Martel
L D Burns for R R Vincent
M A Corlett QC and J C Adams for R Roux
A N D Garrett for A R Dawson

Judgment:

8 August 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF PALMER J

Solicitor/Counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland
R P Chambers, Barrister, Auckland
L D Burns, Barrister, Auckland
M A Corlett QC, Auckland
J C Adams, Barrister, Auckland
A N D Garrett, Barrister, Auckland

R v MARTEL & ORS [2017] NZHC 1878 [8 August 2017]

[1] Mr Rodney Martel, Ms Rachel Vincent, Mr Reghardt Roux and Mr Anthony Dawson, you have pleaded guilty to, and been convicted of drug related offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975:

(a) Mr Martel, you have pleaded guilty to representative charges of importing methamphetamine, GBL and MDMA (or ecstasy) and a charge of importing cocaine.

(b)Ms Vincent, you have pleaded guilty to representative charges of importing methamphetamine, GBL and MDMA, a charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply and a charge of importing cocaine.

(c) Mr Roux, you have pleaded guilty to a representative charge of importing methamphetamine and charges of importing cocaine and GBL.

(d)Mr Dawson, you have pleaded guilty to importing methamphetamine and GBL.

[2] The methamphetamine and cocaine offences, relating to class A drugs, are subject to a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The others, as class B drugs, are subject to a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment. As the potential penalties indicate, these are serious offences. I now have to decide what sentences should be imposed.

[3] I should say, at the outset that those dealing in drugs are causing human misery in our communities. Methamphetamine, in particular, was reclassified as a class A drug in New Zealand in 2003 to reflect its very high risk of harm. The Health Select Committee of the House of Representatives noted that methamphetamine “appeals to vulnerable populations, has a high physical and psychological dependence potential, and can lead to long-term adverse physical and
psychological effects.”1 You may recognise some those characteristics.

Methamphetamine had been linked to deaths and poses significant risk to public

1 Health Committee Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2003 (April 2003)
at 3.

health. Its classification was said by the Committee to “serve as a signal that methamphetamine is one of the most dangerous of drugs”.

Facts

[4] In February 2016 Customs received information through Crimestoppers naming Mr Martel and Ms Vincent as importing meth and GBL. Mr Dawson, Mr Roux and Mr Bell, a co-defendant who has already been sentenced, were also identified in the course of the investigation.

[5] From 9 June 2015 to 20 April 2016 Customs intercepted a total of

37 packages sent to multiple addresses in Auckland, Christchurch and Canterbury, containing the controlled drugs in relation to which…

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 Martel

Details

AGLC: R v Martel [2017] NZHC 1878
Case: [2017] NZHC 1878
Decision Date: 8 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Martel involved four defendants charged with drug-related offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Rodney George Martel, Rachel Rose Vincent, Reghardt Roux, and Anthony Richard Dawson pleaded guilty to various charges including importing methamphetamine, GBL, MDMA, and cocaine. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for each defendant, considering the gravity of the offences, the quantity of drugs involved, and each individual's role in the drug operation. The court also needed to consider the defendants' personal circumstances, including their history of offending, addiction, and potential for rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court were determining the appropriate starting point for each defendant's sentence based on the quantity of drugs imported and their role in the operation, adjusting the starting point based on aggravating or mitigating factors in their personal circumstances, and applying discounts for early guilty pleas. The court had to ensure that the sentences served the purposes of holding the offenders accountable, promoting a sense of responsibility, denouncing the conduct, deterring future offences, protecting the community, and promoting rehabilitation.

The court began by setting a starting point for each defendant based on the amount of drugs imported and their role in the operation. Martel, characterised as the mastermind, received a starting point of 20 years' imprisonment. Vincent, described as a senior manager, received a starting point of 17 years. Roux, an organiser, received a starting point of 13 years and six months, and Dawson, a catcher, received a starting point of four years. The court then considered personal circumstances and adjusted the starting points accordingly. Martel received an uplift of six months due to his previous convictions and a discount of ten per cent for his early guilty plea. Vincent received an uplift of three months for previous convictions and a discount of 15 per cent for her early guilty plea. Roux received a discount of 15 per cent for his early guilty plea, while Dawson received a ten per cent discount for remorse and a 15 per cent discount for his early guilty plea. The court also imposed a 50 per cent minimum period of imprisonment for Martel, Vincent, and Roux, in line with the purposes of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The court ordered Martel to be imprisoned for 18 years and six months with a minimum period of nine years and three months. Vincent was ordered to be imprisoned for 14 years and eight months with a minimum period of seven years and four months. Roux was ordered to be imprisoned for 11 years and six months with a minimum period of five years and nine months. Dawson was ordered to be imprisoned for three years. The court also ordered the destruction of all drug-related exhibits.

Orders