R v Rodgers - [2012] NZHC 2054

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2011-085-1856 [2012] NZHC 2054

THE QUEEN

v

PAUL PETER MAWANA RODGERS

Hearing: 30, 31 July, 1 August 2012

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

Judgment: 15 August 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS (Disputed Facts)

Introduction

[1] The defendant Paul Rodgers, known also as Porky Rimene, is a drug dealer. This he admits. But he says he is not as big a dealer as the Crown alleges. So, in pleading guilty to several serious drugs charges, he challenges the Crown summary of facts. The result is the present disputed facts hearing.

[2] This judgment analyses the role of Mr Rodgers, and the extent of his methamphetamine dealing in the 19 or so months between July 2009 and February
2011. These matters are directly relevant to the sentence Mr Rodgers will receive.

R v RODGERS HC WN CRI 2011-085-1856 [15 August 2012]

Background

[3] In August 2010 the police began a covert operation against members of the Hutt-Masterton and Wellington chapters of the Nomads gang. The defendant is “Captain” (or head) of the Wellington chapter. The focus of the operation was the supply of methamphetamine.

[4] In April 2011 three members of the gang, the defendant, John MacDonald and a third member whom I will call Mr A1 were arrested. Arrested too was the defendant’s girlfriend, Kelly Cole.

[5] On 6 October 2011 the defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of supplying methamphetamine, seven charges of offering to supply methamphetamine, one charge of participating in an organised criminal group, one charge of conspiring to obstruct justice, one charge of conspiracy to supply cannabis and one charge of engaging in a money laundering transaction. Most of these charges are brought jointly with MacDonald, Cole and Mr A.

[6] The defendant challenges a number of aspects of the Crown’s summary of facts. As a result a disputed facts hearing was convened under s 24(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002.

Jurisdiction

[7] So far as relevant s 24 of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides:

24 Proof of facts
(1) In determining a sentence or other disposition of the case, a court—

(a) may accept as proved any fact that was disclosed by evidence at the hearing or trial and any facts agreed on by the prosecutor and the offender; and

(b) must accept as proved all facts, express or implied, that are essential to a plea of guilty or a finding of guilt.

(2) If a fact that is relevant to the determination of a sentence or other

disposition of the case is asserted by one party and disputed by the other,—

(a) the court must indicate to the parties the weight that it would be likely to attach to the disputed fact if it were found to exist, and its significance to the sentence or other disposition of the case:

(b) if a party wishes the court to rely on that fact, the parties may adduce evidence…

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 2054
Case: [2012] NZHC 2054
Decision Date: 15 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was called upon to determine the extent of Paul Rodgers' methamphetamine dealing in the 19 months between July 2009 and February 2011. This was necessary to determine the sentence Rodgers would receive. The primary issues before the court were: (1) the extent of Rodgers' leadership role within the criminal organisation, and (2) the amount of methamphetamine Rodgers was responsible for supplying between July 2009 and February 2011. The court found that Rodgers was the head of, and controlled in all practical respects, the criminal organisation responsible for the offences charged in the present indictment. Further, the court found that during the relevant charge period Rodgers was in possession of at least 60 ounces (1680 grams) of pure methamphetamine. The court also found that Rodgers did not make personal use of the methamphetamine in his possession during the charge period to a material extent, and that Rodgers did not lose any material quantity of that methamphetamine. Sentencing of the defendant took place on 4 September 2012 at 9.00 am.

Orders