R v Rodgers - [2012] NZHC 2296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2011-085-1856 [2012] NZHC 2296

THE QUEEN

v

PAUL PETER MAWANA RODGERS

Counsel: S K Barr for Crown
N J Sainsbury for Accused

Sentence: 7 September 2012

SENTENCE NOTES OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] Mr Rodgers, you have been transferred for sentence from the District Court. I now convict you formally in this Court of the following counts, to which you have pleaded guilty and on which you now appear for sentence before me:

(a) Supplying methamphetamine: 1 count.1

(b) Offering to supply methamphetamine: 7 counts.2

(c) Participation in an organised criminal group: 1 count.3

(d) Conspiracy to supply cannabis: 1 count.4

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2).
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2).
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2A)(c).

R v RODGERS HC WN CRI 2011-085-1856 [7 September 2012]

(e) Conspiracy to obstruct the course of justice: 1 count.5

(f) Money laundering: 1 count.6

Details of offending

[2] I will summarise, briefly, your offending.

Methamphetamine offending

[3] In August 2010 the police began an investigation into the supply of methamphetamine by the Nomads gang. You are the captain, or the head of its Wellington chapter. Alongside that gang you ran your own private drug dealing organisation, for your own personal profit. You were arrested in April 2011. Many of the offences which you have been convicted of today were the subject of joint charges with other offenders. You pleaded guilty to these offences six months later, in October 2011.

[4] You disputed some parts of the Crown summary of facts. In particular as to your role and responsibility, and as to the level of methamphetamine supplied. A disputed facts hearing was conducted before me in early August, over the course of three days. By that stage you accepted you had received 23 ounces (644 grams) of methamphetamine. But you said that you had yourself consumed 8 ounces (224 grams) and had lost a further 7 ounces (196 grams) when a bulldozer disturbed a stash buried in wasteland. That left just 8 ounces (224 grams).

[5] By the close of the hearing you accepted that you had in fact received 36 ounces (just over 1 kilogram), rather than 23 ounces (644 grams). Allowing the same deductions you claimed, that meant you had supplied 21 ounces (588 grams) to the market. As a result it was plain that you fell within the most serious Band Four
sentencing guideline laid down by the Court of Appeal in R v Fatu.7

5      Crimes Act 1961, s 116.
6      Crimes Act 1961, s 243(2).
7      R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 at [34].

[6] In any event Mr Rodgers, I disbelieved the evidence given as to self-use and loss. I concluded that none of that was true to any material extent and the Crown had demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that you had supplied at least 60…

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 Rodgers

Details

AGLC: R v Rodgers [2012] NZHC 2296
Case: [2012] NZHC 2296
Decision Date: 7 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rodgers, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involved the sentencing of Paul Peter Mawana Rodgers, who had been convicted of various drug-related offences, including supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine, participating in an organised criminal group, conspiring to supply cannabis, conspiring to obstruct the course of justice, and money laundering. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Rodgers, considering the gravity of his offending, his personal circumstances, and the purposes and principles of sentencing. The court found Rodgers to be the head of a criminal organisation involved in significant methamphetamine supply, and he had a history of violence and over 120 previous convictions. Despite his extensive criminal history, the court recognised his genuine remorse and commitment to his family. The court set a starting point of 19 years' imprisonment, taking into account the lead charge of methamphetamine supply and uplifting for other charges. The court also considered aggravating and mitigating factors, such as Rodgers' history of violence and his guilty plea. Ultimately, the court imposed a finite sentence of 15 years' imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of seven years and six months for the methamphetamine supply charge. The court also ordered concurrent sentences for other charges, resulting in a total sentence of 15 years' imprisonment.

The key legal issues in this case were the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the imposition of a minimum term of imprisonment. The court had to balance the purposes and principles of sentencing, including accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, against the gravity of the offending and the personal circumstances of the offender. The court also had to consider the impact of the offender's actions on society and the need to protect the community from the harm caused by drug-related offending.

Orders