ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS/VICTIM/CONNECTED PERSON(S) PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE
CRI-2017-070-004480
[2020] NZHC 68
THE QUEEN
v
MATTHEW JOHN SCOTT MARIO HABULIN
BENJAMIN JOHN NORTHWAY DENI CAVALLO
Hearing:
4 February 2020 (Heard at Rotorua)
Appearances:
A Pollett and O M Salt for the Crown R Mansfield for Mr Scott
M McCarty for Mr Habulin B Hesketh for Mr Northway M Pecotic for Mr Cavallo
Judgment:
4 February 2020
SENTENCING NOTES OF POWELL J
R v SCOTT [2020] NZHC 68 [4 February 2020]
Contents
Paragraph Number
The offending
[5]
Approach to Sentencing
[16]
Assessment of starting point generally
[23]
Starting point –Habulin
[34]
Discussion
[38]
Starting point – Scott
[42]
Discussion
[45]
Starting point –Cavallo
[52]
Discussion
[55]
Starting point – Northway
[60]
Discussion
[62]
Summary
[64]
Personal circumstances
[65]
Personal circumstances – Habulin
[66]
Personal circumstances
[69]
Discussion
[72]
Personal circumstances – Scott
[80]
Personal circumstances
[81]
Discussion
[84]
Personal circumstances –Cavallo
[90]
The section 27 report
[91]
The psychological assessment
[93]
Discussion
[94]
Personal circumstances –Northway
[101]
Guilty plea
[106]
End Sentence
[111]
Minimum period of imprisonment
[113]
Discussion
[114]
Sentence
[116]
Schedule
[Annexed]
[1] Matthew Scott, Benjamin Northway, Mario Habulin and Deni Cavallo you have come up for sentence today some seven months after pleading guilty to a range of charges arising out of the importation of a substantial quantity of the Class A drug cocaine.
[2] The delay was necessary for a range of reasons and in particular to enable each of you to place all relevant material before the Court before this sentencing took place.
[3] The charges to which you have pleaded included pleading guilty to participating in an organised criminal group1 whereby each of you has accepted:
…between 10 March 2017 and 1 November 2017 and around New Zealand did participate in an organised criminal group, knowing that three or more people shared the objective of obtaining material benefits from the commission of offences against section 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and knowing that [each of your] conduct contributed to the occurrence of any criminal activity being the importation, possession and supply of the Class A controlled drug cocaine and knowing that the criminal activity contributed to achieving the particular objective or particular objectives of the organised criminal group.
[4] Likewise, each of you has pleaded guilty to importing cocaine.2 As I will detail in Mr Habulin’s case, this involved a total of 76 kg of cocaine in the course of three shipments, with the rest of you pleading guilty to importing 46 kg on the last of those shipments. In addition, Mr Scott and Mr Habulin have also pleaded guilty to two charges of supplying cocaine,3 and charges of possessing cocaine for supply4 and money laundering.5 Mr Northway has pleaded guilty to one additional charge of possessing cocaine for the…
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 Scott
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Scott [2020] NZHC 68
Case
[2020] NZHC 68
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involved the sentencing of four defendants, Matthew Scott, Benjamin Northway, Mario Habulin, and Deni Cavallo, who had pleaded guilty to a range of charges arising out of the importation of a substantial quantity of the Class A drug cocaine. The defendants were part of an organised criminal group that had imported a total of 122 kg of cocaine over three shipments between March and November 2017. The Court considered the seriousness of the offending, the roles of the defendants, and their personal circumstances before determining the appropriate sentences. The Court found that the defendants' roles varied significantly, with Habulin and Scott playing leading roles and Northway and Cavallo having more limited involvement. The Court imposed sentences ranging from 14 years and nine months' imprisonment for Northway to 27 years and six months' imprisonment for Habulin, with all sentences being served concurrently. The Court also declined to impose any additional minimum periods of imprisonment beyond those prescribed by the Parole Act 2002.