R v Rhodes - [2016] NZHC 2729

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2015-019-6211 [2016] NZHC 2729

THE QUEEN

v

RICHARD HEBOLD RHODES

Hearing: 15 November 2016

Counsel:

J N Foster for Crown
C Bean for Defendant

Judgment:

15 November 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

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

R v RHODES [2016] NZHC 2729 [15 November 2016]

Introduction

[1] Richard Hebold Rhodes, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty on the first day of your trial, 25 October 2016, to one charge of supplying the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine, one representative charge of selling the Class C controlled drug cannabis and one charge of possessing of cannabis for sale. On the second day of your trial, 26 October 2016, you pleaded guilty to additional charges: one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine, two stand alone charges of supplying methamphetamine, one representative charge of offering to supply methamphetamine, one of possessing methamphetamine for supply, one of supplying cannabis to a young person, and one of conspiracy to cultivate cannabis.

[2] On all of the pleas of guilty entered on 25 and 26 October 2016, you were convicted. You now appear for sentence on each.

Sentence indications

[3] I take as the lead charges for sentencing purposes those of supplying methamphetamine. The maximum sentence for offending of that type is life imprisonment.

[4] You received a sentence indication on 13 April 2016.1 You declined to plead guilty on the basis of that indication, as was your right. Subsequently, the Crown identified dealing in methamphetamine at a level significantly higher than put forward in the summary of facts for the purpose of that sentence indication.

[5] You sought a second sentence indication based on that new information. I gave that on 29 September 2016.2 Once again, you declined to accept the indication. You were remanded for trial which was to commence on 25 October 2016. The trial was scheduled for four weeks.

[6] Generally speaking, notwithstanding that you declined to accept the second sentence indication, I shall sentence you on the basis of it. I have one qualification

1 R v Rhodes [2016] NZHC 662.
2 R v Rhodes [2016] NZHC 2323.

in saying that. That qualification is that I will assessing whether any credit should be given for the guilty pleas independently of that earlier sentence indication.

Facts

[7] In August 2015, the Waikato Police Organised Crime Squad began an investigation which was code-named Operation Daydream. It focussed on the supply of methamphetamine in the Te Aroha and Paeroa regions. The Police identified a group of individuals who appeared to be working together. As a result, warrants were obtained to intercept private communications, and a covert phase of the operation began.

[8] During the covert phase, a number of investigative techniques were used by the Police. They included back-captured text messages and surveillance confirming the identity of a number of individuals involved in the drug dealing enterprise. An undercover police officer was also deployed.…

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 Rhodes

Details

AGLC: R v Rhodes [2016] NZHC 2729
Case: [2016] NZHC 2729
Decision Date: 15 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Richard Hebold Rhodes was sentenced on various drug-related charges, including supplying and possessing methamphetamine and cannabis, and conspiracy to cultivate cannabis. The court considered the methamphetamine charges as the primary offenses, which carried a potential maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The court outlined the extensive nature of Rhodes' criminal activities, which involved significant quantities of drugs and multiple transactions with undercover police officers. The court highlighted the aggravating factors, such as Rhodes' prior criminal history and his involvement in drug trafficking while on bail for firearms offenses.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for Rhodes, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors. The court assessed whether credit should be given for Rhodes' late guilty pleas and his expressions of remorse, ultimately deciding against it due to the severity of the offenses and the repeated opportunities Rhodes had to plead guilty earlier. The court also considered the need for denunciation, deterrence, accountability, and community protection as primary sentencing goals.

The court concluded that Rhodes' offending warranted a sentence within Band 4 of the leading tariff decision for methamphetamine supply, which covers very large commercial quantities. The court set a starting point of 12 years and six months’ imprisonment, adjusted upwards by 18 months to account for personal aggravating factors such as his history of dealing in firearms and methamphetamine. After rejecting all mitigating factors, the court imposed a total sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment for the methamphetamine offenses, with a concurrent five-year sentence for the cannabis-related offenses. The court also imposed a minimum non-parole period of 50 percent of the total sentence, equating to seven years' imprisonment. Finally, the court ordered the forfeiture of the cash seized during the operation.

Orders