R v O'Connor - [2016] NZHC 440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-004-020035 [2016] NZHC 440

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL O'CONNOR

Hearing: 15 March 2016

Appearances:

Scott McColgan and Tyler Bellingham for the Crown
Ron Mansfield for the Defendant

Judgment:

15 March 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v O'CONNOR [2016] NZHC 440 [15 March 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr O’Connor, you appear for sentence on one charge of importing methamphetamine.1 It is a charge which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, a penalty which reflects how seriously offending of this sort is viewed.

[2] You pleaded guilty on 17 August 2015. That you are being sentenced some seven months later is unsatisfactory. It is a consequence which arises from a series of complications the fault for which cannot be laid at your door.

Facts

[3] The facts which gave rise to this charge are contained in the Police’s summary of facts which you accept. That summary makes it plain you were part of a large scale and sophisticated international drug importation. Your role was to monitor the imported drug shipment, manage and direct the person tasked to collect it in this country and to support that person in getting the shipment into the hands of the local distributor.

[4] The amount of drugs landed in New Zealand was very substantial indeed. It was in excess of 4.3 kilograms. This amount of methamphetamine had a value of between $2.7 and $4.3 million depending on which street level dealing price is adopted. I accept that to some extent using street level pricing is artificial but it does provide some insight into the value and profits which trafficking in this pernicious and dreadfully destructive substance can attract. Furthermore, using as a denominator the most common street usage quantity of 0.1 gram (“or a Point”) this amount of methamphetamine would have made up something of the order 43,000 individual doses. Again, that figure is open to criticism but it does provide some indication of scale.

[5] Your role in these events meant you never had any direct dealing with the shipment. You operated remotely. You gave your directions to the “catcher” the
person tasked to receive the importation, from the other side of the world. But your

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a) and 2(a).

involvement was critical to the success of the operation and you were inextricably linked to others both above and below you in its hierarchy.

[6] In order to define your exact role it is necessary to review what happened between September and November 2012.

[7] In September 2012 a Mr da Silva arrived in Auckland from Japan. He was the “catcher”. Unbeknownst to him he was under covert and electronic surveillance by the New Zealand Police and Customs because they suspected he was associated with an international drug syndicate which had been involved in previous drug importations to New Zealand.

[8] Through the covert phase it was discovered that da Silva was communicating with a Netherlands-based man who…

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 O'Connor

Details

AGLC: R v O'Connor [2016] NZHC 440
Case: [2016] NZHC 440
Decision Date: 15 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael O'Connor was convicted of importing a large quantity of methamphetamine into New Zealand. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, considering the severity of the offense, O'Connor's role in the drug importation, and his personal circumstances. The court set a starting point for sentencing based on the quantity of drugs involved and O'Connor's role as a key player in the drug trafficking operation. O'Connor's previous conviction for drug-related offenses, his significant involvement in the drug importation, and the serious harm caused by methamphetamine justified an elevated starting point. The court considered mitigating factors such as O'Connor's guilty plea and the time taken to enter the plea, but ultimately decided that deterrence and denunciation were the primary purposes of sentencing in this case. The final sentence was 16 years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of eight years.

The legal issues the court had to decide included the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment. The court had to balance the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and accountability against the need for rehabilitation and reintegration, ultimately prioritizing deterrence and denunciation in this case. The court also had to consider parity with sentences imposed on O'Connor's co-offenders and ensure that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offense and the harm caused by methamphetamine.

Orders