R v Smith - [2025] NZHC 140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-009-007536

[2025] NZHC 140

THE KING

v

ANDREW MICHAEL SMITH

Hearing: 11 February 2025

Appearances:

C R Stuart for Crown

A M S Williams for Defendant

Sentencing Notes:

11 February 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF EATON J

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

R v SMITH [2025] NZHC 140 [11 February 2025]

Introduction

[1] Andrew Michael Smith, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine,1 one representative charge of supplying cocaine,2 two charges of possessing cocaine for supply,3 and one charge each of possession of methamphetamine for supply4 and participation in an organised criminal group.5

The offending

[2] You were arrested as part of a police investigation into a multi-million-dollar methamphetamine and cocaine supply network operated by the Tribesmen Motorcycle Gang (Tribesmen MC) between September 2021 and October 2023.

[3] The police obtained surveillance device warrants that allowed them to intercept private communications and covertly record locations of interest. Police also executed multiple search warrants that revealed large quantities of cash and the seizure of multiple electronic devices.

[4] Ricky Poa (formerly Smith) is a patched member of the Tribesmen MC gang. He holds the rank of National Vice President. Mr Poa has entered guilty pleas, admitting his role in the offending. He has been given and accepted a sentence indication but is yet to be sentenced.

[5] Mr Poa was the principal offender of the methamphetamine and cocaine supply network. He was the leader and, it is acknowledged, the main financial beneficiary of the drug dealing activity. He was primarily responsible for sourcing kilogram quantities of methamphetamine and cocaine from organised criminal groups in Auckland and elsewhere. Consistent with that role, he did not have the controlled drugs or cash in his physical possession. Instead, he arranged for trusted patched members and gang associates to manage, and this is particularly relevant to you, the

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c), (2)(a) and 66; maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Sections 6(1)(c), (2)(a) and 66; maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Sections 6(1)(f), (2)(a) and 66; maximum penalty life imprisonment.
4      Sections 6(1)(f), (2)(a) and 66; maximum penalty life imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A; maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

transportation of the drugs. He arranged for others to manage the storage of the cash and drugs.

[6] Mr Smith, you are 39 years old. You are a patched member of the Tribesmen MC. You are Mr Poa’s brother and trusted associate.

[7] You were in direct and regular communication with Mr Poa and another co-defendant, Blake Harpur, who was an associate of the gang, described as working towards patched member status. You were acting together in relation to the operation of what has been referred to as the second supply line. That supply line operated under the guise of two…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2025] NZHC 140
Case: [2025] NZHC 140
Decision Date: 11 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, with the defendant, Andrew Michael Smith, pleading guilty to charges related to drug trafficking and participation in an organised criminal group. Smith was arrested as part of a police investigation into a drug supply network operated by the Tribesmen Motorcycle Gang. He was involved in the transportation of methamphetamine and cocaine, with the operation spanning from May to October 2023. Smith's role was significant, managing and coordinating the transportation of drugs and cash, and he received discounted drugs as part of his involvement.

The legal issues in the case revolved around determining an appropriate sentence for Smith's involvement in the drug trafficking operation, considering the quantity of drugs involved, his role in the operation, and various personal mitigating and aggravating factors. The court had to balance the purposes of sentencing, including accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, while also considering the harm caused by drug trafficking.

The court established a starting point of 15 years and six months’ imprisonment for Smith's drug-related charges, applying a five per cent deduction for the cocaine involved. The court acknowledged Smith's significant role in the operation but also recognised his loyalty to his brother and his addiction as mitigating factors. Personal mitigating factors, including Smith's guilty plea, cultural background, addiction, and the impact of his imprisonment on his children, were considered. The court decided against imposing a minimum period of imprisonment, leaving the release decision to the Parole Board.

Ultimately, the court sentenced Smith to nine years and three months’ imprisonment, with concurrent sentences on most charges and a two-year concurrent sentence for participation in an organised criminal group. The judge emphasised the importance of Smith using his time in prison to work on his rehabilitation and become a better role model for his children.

Orders