R v Zagros - [2022] NZHC 2874

SUPPRESSION ORDERS EXIST IN RELATION TO ASPECTS OF THIS JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO S 205 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN REDACTED. SEE PARAGRAPH [84].

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2018-009-008704

[2022] NZHC 2874

THE KING

v

SAMI ZAGROS

Hearing: 2 November 2022

Counsel:

S J Mallett for the Crown

A M S Williams and K Bucher for the Defendant

Date:

3 November 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

[1] Mr Zagros, you and your family will understand that, before today, I received detailed submissions in writing, the s 27 report, pre-sentence report, submissions from the Crown. So, I have had the opportunity very carefully to consider all that material before now. But, obviously you have heard counsel for both the Crown and your counsel emphasise particular points that they want me to take into account and they are matters that I have considered carefully.

[2] I do acknowledge that your family are here, and you are fortunate to have their support. But I must now proceed with the sentencing.

R v ZAGROS [2022] NZHC 2874 [3 November 2022]

Introduction

[3] You appear for sentence on eight charges of importation of methamphetamine, three charges of attempted importation of methamphetamine, one charge of possession of MDMA for supply, one charge of common assault, a charge of failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search, and one charge of money laundering.

Facts

[4] Your offending was described in an agreed summary of facts that was read out on 6 May 2022 at the time you pleaded guilty to certain charges. But, it is important that I include all these facts in my sentencing remarks and that I repeat them now. This is what you agreed to, as referred to in the summary of facts.

[5] Between May and September 2018, you, Preston Radford and Cherie Akehurst were identified by New Zealand Customs investigators as being involved in the importation and distribution of methamphetamine, and the distribution of MDMA. The modus operandi of this syndicate involved the importation into New Zealand, mainly from Mexico and the United States of America, of legitimately declared packages containing methamphetamine, destined for various addresses around Christchurch. The consignee addresses were vacant or yet to be rented properties, or addresses occupied by syndicate members or neighbouring properties. The consignee names were fictitious or had slight variations to the names of the syndicate members. This allowed for packages to be uplifted by syndicate members or associates without drawing attention to themselves from law enforcement authorities.

Importation and attempted importation of methamphetamine

[6] On eight separate occasions, you helped facilitate, through the use of the encrypted messaging application Wickr, the importation of packages of methamphetamine into New Zealand.

[7] In addition, on three occasions, you attempted to import methamphetamine. One package was intercepted by Hong Kong Customs, another by Brazilian Customs and a third by United States Customs Border Control.

[8]…

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 Zagros

Details

AGLC: R v Zagros [2022] NZHC 2874
Case: [2022] NZHC 2874
Decision Date: 3 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sami Zagros appeared before the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, for sentencing on charges related to drug importation, attempted importation, possession for supply, money laundering, common assault, and failure to comply with a computer search. The court examined the legal issues of determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the role and quantity of drugs involved, and the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing. The court decided that Zagros' role in the methamphetamine importation and distribution was leading, warranting a starting point of 13 years imprisonment for the actual importations and an additional uplift for the attempted importations, possession of MDMA, common assault, and failure to comply with a computer search. The court also considered Zagros' previous convictions, his conduct during the proceedings, and the risk of reoffending. Ultimately, the court sentenced Zagros to 16 years imprisonment, with a requirement to pay reparation to the victim of the common assault charge and an order for the forfeiture of electronic devices used in the offending.

Orders