R v Rogers - [2016] NZHC 1103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2014-088-003309 [2016] NZHC 1103

THE QUEEN

v

ELIJAH JOSEPH ROGERS

Hearing: 24 May 2016

Appearances:

Michael Smith for the Crown
Nick Leader for Mr Rogers

Judgment:

24 May 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v ROGERS [2016] NZHC 1103 [24 May 2016]

Introduction

[1] Elijah Joseph Rogers you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to

19 charges which relate to your participation in a drug manufacturing and dealing syndicate.

[2] Initially you faced a number of other charges arising out of these events. However, no doubt in recognition of the principle of totality and the entry of pleas of guilty, the Crown has elected not to offer evidence on the other charges and, accordingly, in terms of s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 those charges are dismissed.

[3] Let me say from the outset that it is inevitable you will be sentenced to a lengthy period of imprisonment today. The law dictates that there can be no other outcome and this is accepted by you through Mr Leader in the excellent and comprehensive submissions he has made on your behalf.

[4] Furthermore, because sentencing is an important public function it must be conducted openly. This means that I am required to set out the relevant facts and apply those to the law which governs your case. This necessarily means I shall be discussing facts which are well known to you. I will also be discussing relevant legal principles which I am sure will also have been explained to you.

[5] Additionally, until this morning it was anticipated that you and Mr Mangu would be sentenced together. Given the issues raised by Mr Leader earlier this morning I dealt with Mr Mangu separately. In my comments to you this afternoon there will be large tracts repeated from what I said to Mr Mangu. That is because those comments relate to you both and are worthy and necessary of repetition in my sentencing comments to you now.

[6] When it comes to the formal imposition of sentence I shall ask you to stand. I shall tell you when. Until then you may remain seated.

Background facts

[7] In July 2014, the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand (OFCANZ) commenced an investigation into the activities of an organised criminal group made up of patched members of the Head Hunters Motor Cycle Gang and others (“the Group”). This operation was codenamed, “Taskforce Easter”.

[8] The Group was founded with one purpose in mind: to manufacture and sell large quantities of the class A controlled drug methamphetamine. The Crown’s case is that sitting at the apex of this Group was Brownie Joseph Harding (“Mr Harding”).

[9] You were one of the manufacturers of methamphetamine, otherwise known as “cooks”. According to the Crown, you operated under Mr Harding’s superintendence and in accordance with his instructions. I shall describe your role in more detail later. But in addition to the manufacturing of…

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 Rogers

Details

AGLC: R v Rogers [2016] NZHC 1103
Case: [2016] NZHC 1103
Decision Date: 24 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Rogers was sentenced on 19 charges relating to his participation in a drug manufacturing and dealing syndicate. The syndicate was founded with the purpose of manufacturing and selling large quantities of methamphetamine. Rogers was one of the methamphetamine manufacturers and was also involved in its distribution. The court had to decide on an appropriate sentence for Rogers given the nature and scale of his involvement. The starting point for Rogers' sentence was set at 25 years' imprisonment, taking into account the gravity and seriousness of his offending. However, a discount of 20% was applied for his guilty pleas, bringing his sentence to 19 years' imprisonment. Additionally, a minimum period of imprisonment of 50% was imposed, meaning Rogers must serve at least nine and a half years before being eligible for release. Rogers was sentenced to 19 years' imprisonment on the lead charges, with concurrent sentences for the other charges.

Orders