THE KING v JIM DAVID THACKER
[2024] NZHC 3104
•8 November 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE
CRI-2021-070-4221
[2023] NZHC 3104
THE KING v
JIM DAVID THACKER
Hearing: 18 August 2023 Appearances:
A J Pollett and C A Bourke for the Crown W T Nabney for Mr Thacker
Judgment:
8 November 2023
Reissued:
6 December 2023
SENTENCING REMARKS OF HARLAND J
Introduction
[1] Mr Thacker, you appear before the Court today for sentence on 53 charges, having been found guilty by a jury of 40 charges and having pleaded guilty to 131 charges at the outset of your trial and one during the trial. All charges arose out of the Police operation known as Operation Silk.
[2] The charges include possession of methamphetamine for supply, supplying that drug, possessing and possessing cocaine for supply, possessing a class B controlled
1 In my sentencing remarks I referred to 12 charges. However, there are in fact 13, 12 prior to trial and 1 during the trial.
R v THACKER [2023] NZHC 3104 [8 November 2023]
drug, possessing cannabis oil and cannabis for sale, money laundering, discharging a firearm with reckless disregard, unlawfully possessing firearms and pistols including prohibited firearms, ammunition and explosives, participating in an organised criminal group, theft and wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice. A specific list of the charges will be included in my written sentencing remarks in a table.
[3] In respect of your convictions, the maximum penalties range from a term of life imprisonment for the methamphetamine charges to three years’ imprisonment for unlawfully possessing ammunition.
[4] It is clear that the sentencing outcome for you will be a lengthy term of imprisonment. The issue for me is what the starting point for that term of imprisonment should be and whether there are mitigating factors relating to you personally that justify reducing the term of imprisonment. And a key issue will also be what minimum term of imprisonment (MPI), if any, should be imposed.
[5] First of all, I outline certain matters of general importance that relate to the offending of the kind you have undertaken before addressing your specific offending and the mitigating matters that relate to you personally.
Your role in Operation Silk
[6] So, starting with your role in Operation Silk. On 6 September 2018, you were deported from Australia. At that time, you were the president of the Beenleigh Bandidos Motorcycle Club (Bandidos). You returned to New Zealand to live in the Bay of Plenty. I infer that you must have had an association with Hone Ronaki, Kelly Petrowski and Leon Huritu prior to your return to New Zealand but, even if this is not correct, on your return to New Zealand, you quickly established contact with them.
[7] Initially, you and Hone Ronaki were involved as senior members of the newly established Bandidos chapter in the North Island of New Zealand. At that point, it appears that Hone Ronaki may have been the president and you may have been the vice president. As a result however of issues that developed within the club, you were de-patched and this led to you becoming involved in the Mongols Motorcycle Club (Mongols).
[8] The Mongols are an international gang established in 1969 in the USA. In 2013, they established in Australia. The Mongols are a One Percent gang. Because of their involvement in the motorcycle community, One Percent effectively means that 99 per cent of motorcycle riders are law-abiding citizens but those who wish to sit outside of that group are known as One Percenters.
[9] In 2019, you became the president of the newly established New Zealand chapter of the Mongols. You remained the president throughout the period to which your convictions relate. And Hone Ronaki was the vice president, at least initially.
[10] The gang grew to form chapters and links predominantly in Auckland and Christchurch as well as elsewhere in New Zealand. Your friend, Brodie Collins- Haskins, came out from Australia to visit you but, as a result of his offending here, he was required to stay in New Zealand and also joined the Mongols. He had previously been a member of the Bandidos in Australia and he became a senior member of the Mongols in Auckland.
[11] Jason Ross was the senior member in Christchurch. He patched over from the Hells Angels to the Mongols. Kelly Petrowski was originally based in Papamoa but moved to the Hawkes Bay where other Mongols were also situated.
[12] The Mongols quickly became involved in the supply of illegal drugs, predominantly methamphetamine, but also MDMA and 25I-NBOMe. You were also found guilty of one charge of possessing cocaine for the purposes of supply, another supplying cocaine and two of possessing it.2 I will return to whether I consider the Mongols were supplying cocaine commercially or not later in these sentencing remarks. But, in any event, the Mongols’ involvement in supplying predominantly class A and B drugs was quickly established. This resulted in patch protection issues with other gangs. Firearms were obtained and used by the Mongols, of which you were president, to protect its drug-dealing business.
2 Charges 25, 26, 27 and 32.
Your offending
Drugs offending
[13] I now outline matters that are relevant to your sentence concerning your offending and, first of all, dealing with the drugs offending.
[14] As I have said, your methamphetamine offending includes convictions for possessing methamphetamine for supply3 and supplying methamphetamine.4 The quantum involved is an issue, with the Crown submitting it was in excess of 24 kilograms and your lawyer submitting it was likely to be in the region of 18 kgs.
[15] The evidence about your direct involvement in the methamphetamine charges for which you were found guilty came from a protected witness. He had been a resident of Australia but was not deported as you and others were. Rather, he returned to New Zealand voluntarily to live in the Bay of Plenty. He met you through Hone Ronaki.
[16] The protected witness’s evidence, which I accept, was that you and he formed a friendship and gradually, after being tested by Hone Ronaki as being trustworthy, he became a key figure in the Mongols’ evolving drug dealing business. His evidence was that eventually, at your direction, he would be sent to Auckland to pick up kilograms of methamphetamine from Brodie Collins-Haskins, your Auckland connection and friend, which would then be transported back to Te Puke for packaging and, in some instances, it would be cut by him. He would then be directed by you to transport and deliver the methamphetamine to the South Island via the Mongols’ Christchurch main connection, Jason Ross.
[17] The protected witness was trusted by you because he did not have a methamphetamine or cocaine habit and he had a clean licence. No doubt, given his prior gang involvement, he also understood the rules of engagement. This was clear from his answers when he said he followed instructions and did not ask questions as he was just the driver. When uplifting and delivering the methamphetamine, cash
3 Charges 14, 16, 28, 35, 37, 39 and 46.
4 Charges 17, 21, 29 and 42.
would at times be exchanged and returned by the protected witness to you. He described the cash as being in bundles of $50 notes, wrapped with rubber bands and typically placed in a shoebox. On one occasion, he was present when you and Hone Ronaki sorted the cash. He said the bundles typically comprised $100,000.
[18] The jury accepted the evidence of the protected witness and I must sentence you on this basis. However, I also record that I found him to be a credible witness on key issues. In my view, he was transporting kilograms of methamphetamine for the Mongols, sourced and obtained from Auckland, and diverted to the Bay of Plenty where you and other key figures were living. It was then transported elsewhere but largely to the South Island for further distribution through the South Island Mongols’ network. Bundles of cash were, in the main, exchanged for the drugs delivered to the South Island. When this happened, the cash was delivered back to you or likely others at your direction.
[19] Initially, the methamphetamine sourced from Auckland was packaged in foil teabags which were vacuum-sealed. The protected witness described the packaging as yellow/green in colour, with each bag weighing 500 grams. He described uplifting kilogram amounts from Auckland. However, once the teabags of methamphetamine ran out, the methamphetamine was still sourced from Auckland but was uplifted by the protected witness in large Glad bags. This methamphetamine was of poorer quality and needed to be cut.
[20] You were also found guilty of possessing 25I-NBOMe pills for supply5 on two occasions. 25I-NBOMe is a class B controlled drug but it is likely you and others assumed it was MDMA or Ecstasy. On one occasion, 512 pills were uplifted by the protected witness, which he counted.6
[21] On all occasions where you were found guilty of either possessing methamphetamine or 25I-NBOMe for supply and/or supplying methamphetamine, you were convicted on the basis that the jury must have accepted that, as the president of the Mongols, you directed the drug transactions that occurred.
5 Charge 10 and 24.
6 Charge 24.
[22] The protected witness would also obtain cocaine for your personal use. It was clear from the evidence that you had a significant cocaine addiction at the time. The protected witness would pick up cocaine for your use from Auckland and, on one occasion, from Napier. You pleaded guilty at the outset of your trial to one charge of possessing 811 milligrams of cocaine for your personal use, which was found in the roof cavity at your address during a search warrant executed by the Police at the termination of Operation Silk.7 You were found guilty by the jury of possessing between five and eight ounces of cocaine8 and two to five ounces of cocaine which you had in your possession for the purposes of supply.9 Of the latter, you supplied two ounces of it to a mate of yours.10 These charges all refer to the same cocaine.
[23] At the outset of the trial, when you were arraigned, you pleaded guilty to one charge of possessing cannabis for sale11 and one of possessing cannabis oil.12 During a search warrant executed at the termination of Operation Silk, 1,056 grams of cannabis was found in the roof cavity at your house and, in the same roof cavity, three jars of cannabis oil (approximately 244 grams) were also found.
[24] Three of the charges for which you were convicted were money laundering charges. On one occasion, you travelled to Auckland with the protected witness and others and spent about $20,000 purchasing items from Louis Vuitton and the Footlocker.13 These items were Christmas presents for your family and also members of the Mongols. As well, you purchased and subsequently disposed of a Sea-Doo jet ski and trailer,14 which was used by you and other members of the Mongols for recreation. All of these items were purchased using money from the sale of illegal drugs.
[25] The jury also convicted you of money laundering in relation to a black motorbike that was sold for between $34,000 and $37,000, which had been passed on
7 Charge 228.
8 Charge 25.
9 Charge 26.
10 Charge 27.
11 Charge 225.
12 Charge 229.
13 Charge 33.
14 Charge 52.
to Frederick Whare and was found in his possession on 5 May 2020. By finding you guilty of this charge, the jury also accepted that the black motorbike had been purchased using money from the sale of illegal drugs.
[26] As well as this, on occasions, firearms were uplifted, delivered and/or stored by the protected witness for the use of the Mongols.15 On the occasion where the protected witness was present when cash was counted in the office room above a wrecker’s yard, firearms were also delivered by him to you. One of these firearms had a distinctive skull on the stock. The jury convicted you and Leon Huritu of being unlawfully in possession of this firearm when it was found in the garage at Oleander Place after the Claridge Road incident.16
[27] Likewise, you were found to be in unlawful possession of firearms, including ammunition and explosives, where the jury must have accepted, even though the firearms were not in your direct possession, that you, as president, had the ability to exercise control of them and knew where they were. I will refer to these later in my remarks.
[28] By far the most serious of the firearms charges are the charges17 of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard. These were referred to during the trial as the Haukore Street and 625 No. 2 Road incidents and, because of the seriousness of them, I will also refer to them in more detail shortly.
[29] But as well, and to finish up the general facts relating to your offending, you were convicted of two charges of participating in an organised criminal group, the objectives of which were to unlawfully supply class A, B and C drugs and to commit serious violent offences. These verdicts logically follow from the other matters to which I have referred.
15 Charges 3, 4 and 5.
16 Charge 109.
17 Charges 54 and 56.
Quantum of methamphetamine
[30] I am now going to talk a little about the quantum of methamphetamine. Your lawyer helpfully provided a table, effectively confirming the quanta you accept are appropriate amounts to be used for the purposes of sentencing. There is a large degree of acceptance by you of the amounts involved, which is to your credit. The only area of dispute is in relation to Charge 14, the representative charge. In relation to this and for other defendants, I have assessed the quantum for this charge to be three kilograms. And I am now going to set out and explain to you the reasons I have reached that conclusion.
[31] Charge 14 was a charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply to others between 1 January 2019 and 25 March 2020 at Auckland, Bay of Plenty and elsewhere in New Zealand. It refers to trips the protected witness took from Auckland to Te Puke and Christchurch and return, that were not covered by other specific charges in the Crown Charge List.
[32] Although the protected witness said he did many trips to the South Island – about once a fortnight – he was challenged about the number of trips he did to the South Island as part of the general challenge to his credibility at trial. I have decided that the fairest way to resolve this is to adopt what the protected witness said to the Police in his initial interview about the number of the trips he did for the Mongols to the South Island. In this interview, he said there were six trips to the South Island, something less than what he said at trial. As three trips are covered by the other charges, I have decided that there were three additional trips covered by charge 14, all of around a kilogram of methamphetamine each. The protected witness was clear, and I have accepted, that for all of the methamphetamine delivered down south, it comprised kilograms. For these reasons, I have adopted three kilograms as the quantum for Charge 14.
[33] The total quantum of methamphetamine which you accept adding on the three kilograms for charge 14 amounts 20 kg.
Firearms offending
[34] I have also referred to the Mongols obtaining firearms and ammunition to protect its drug dealing business. The jury found you guilty of 9 charges of unlawfully possessing firearms, some of which were prohibited firearms or pistols, and five charges of unlawfully possessing ammunition or explosives. There were also the two charges of reckless disregard that I have already referred to.
[35] However, you also pleaded guilty at the outset of your trial to two charges of unlawfully possessing a pistol,18 one charge of unlawfully possessing a firearm,19 two charges of unlawfully possessing ammunition,20 and one charge of unlawfully possessing explosives.21 All of these related to firearms and ammunition found during the execution of the search warrant at your address at the termination of Operation Silk.
[36] The two pistol charges relate to a pistol grip pump-action shotgun and a sawn- off 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun that were located in the roof cavity where 1,056 grams of cannabis and the cannabis oil were located, as was the cocaine comprising 811 milligrams. The ammunition and explosive charges are listed in my sentencing remarks but I won’t read them out now.22
[37] They concern .357 ammunition found in your bedroom and 35 rounds of .22 calibre ammunition, 37 x 12 gauge shotgun ammunition and 5 x 12 Falcon Brand 12 gauge shotgun ammunition which was loaded in the 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun found in the roof cavity.
[38] What is particularly concerning about these firearms charges is that the 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun located in the roof was loaded. There is no doubt in my mind that the firearm was loaded in case you needed to use it quickly for protection.
18 Charges 186 and 187.
19 Charge 226.
20 Charges 3 and 227.
21 Charge 188.
22 Para [37] is only included in the written sentencing remarks as was signalled in [36].
[39] Of the other firearms charges in respect of which you were convicted, the first series of them23 relate to firearms Hone Ronaki and Harley Tuiara delivered to the protected witness’s address. He was asked to and then stored them on behalf of the Mongols. These firearms, including AK-47s and AR-15s, together with ammunition for them, were secreted in a large swimming pool box and suitcase, and were stored in his wardrobe. Ammunition was also delivered for both the AK-47 firearms and AR- 15 firearms. By their verdict, the jury accepted that you knew about and had control over these firearms and ammunition in your role as president of the Mongols.
[40] The jury also found you guilty of unlawfully possessing firearms and ammunition which the protected witness was directed to uplift from a person described during the trial as “Marko”.24 The firearms included a small 8 mm pistol (drilled out), a 12 gauge shotgun, a silver pistol grip, a long-range hunting rifle, a .22 firearm with a revolving magazine, and a pistol grip pump-action shotgun with a skull design. The ammunition included 8 mm rounds, shotgun shells and a few .22 rounds. Again, the jury by their verdict accepted the evidence of the protected witness and that you would have directed and therefore known about and been in control of the firearms given your role.
[41] The timing of these two groups of charges is consistent with the Mongols obtaining a cache of weapons early on, no doubt anticipating what subsequently proved to be correct, which was that other local gangs did not like the Mongols muscling in on their drug trade.
Haukore Street and 625 No. 2 Road shootings
[42] I now turn to outline the very serious incidents that occurred on 28 and 29 January 2020.
[43] On 27 January 2020, there was an arson attack at your barber shop business in Greerton. The business premises were completely destroyed before you had even
23 Charges 3, 4 and 5.
24 Charges 11 and 13.
opened for business. You believed the Mongrel Mob were responsible for the arson attack.
[44] On 28 January 2020, late at night, there was a shooting at 26 Haukore Street, Mangatapu by members of the Mongols. Ninety-six rounds were fired into a house, including into a lounge area where children were watching TV, and at cars at the address. The address was occupied by the daughter of a senior Mongrel Mob member.
[45] Then there was the retaliatory attack by the Mongrel Mob at Hone Ronaki’s address at 625 No 2 Road, Te Puke. Guns were discharged in an exchange between Mongrel Mob members and those at 625 No 2 Road. The shootout occurred during the day.
[46] The Police attended but no firearms were located. However, a number of shell casings were located during the scene examinations which showed that the casings belonged to four firearms, a Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a DPMS Panther rifle A-15, a Ranger brand AK-47 and Wyndham Weaponry WW-15.
[47] Later on, on 28 January 2020, having been notified by a member of the public, the Police went to the Kaituna River and located a bag containing firearms that had been hidden there in the bushes. The firearms concerned were linked to the firearms used during the shooting incidents at Haukore Street and 625 No 2 Road.
[48] In my view, you were present at both incidents and had directed the Haukore Street incident as retaliation against the Mongrel Mob attack on your barber shop that you were trying to establish.
[49] The evidence established that, after the Haukore Street and 625 No. 2 Road incidents, the Police facilitated a meeting between you and the president of the Mongrel Mob in an attempt to avoid further such incidents with the potential for loss of life. It appears that the discussions held resolved the immediate tensions between the Mongols and the Mongrel Mob.
[50] However, tensions between the Mongols and another local gang, the Greasy Dogs, continued.
Malcolm Avenue
[51] On 6 May 2020, there was an incident involving the Greasy Dogs at 65 Malcom Avenue, Te Puke. A 111 call from an occupant of that address stated that a firearm had been presented by a male on the back of a ute, which was one of the two vehicles that had arrived there.
[52] The Police were able to be dispatched almost immediately and observed two vehicles, a white Mazda ute and a black Mercedes, registration AMGG, leave from the vicinity of Malcolm Avenue travelling towards Te Puke. Both vehicles were signalled by the Police to stop but the black Mercedes, in which you were travelling, fled. It was later found abandoned but not too far away. Falcon-Reign Smith, Elijah Wanoa and Kane Ronaki, all younger and junior members of the Mongols, were in the white ute. A sawn-off shotgun was located wrapped in material in the footwell behind the driver’s seat and a loaded long barrel shotgun was found in the box on the rear tray.
[53] The Mercedes vehicle in which you travelled had been purchased by Kelly Petrowski on 4 May 2020 in Napier, barely two days before. This vehicle was seized and fingerprinted. Your fingerprints were identified in this vehicle, as were the fingerprints of Leon Huritu, Whana Ronaki and Chavei Smith. I have no difficulty in concluding that you were in the black Mercedes that day, but it is not clear who presented the firearms.
[54] I note that all other people in the cars, apart from Chavei Smith, were charged with jointly and unlawfully possessing the firearms and ammunition found in the ute. You were found guilty by the jury of these charges.25 The jury, by their verdict, must have accepted you had the ability to direct and control the use of these firearms.
25 Charges 100, 101 and 102.
Caltex Bayfair / Claridge Place
[55] Then there was an incident at the Caltex service station at Bayfield on 24 May 2020 when you and Leon Huritu were, by chance at the service station at the same time as two young members of the Greasy Dogs. You stole a Greasy Dogs sweatshirt from one of these junior members. You pleaded guilty to this during the trial on 31 October 2022, once I amended the charge down from aggravated robbery to theft.
[56] The Greasy Dogs retaliated by travelling to Mr Huritu’s address at 18 Claridge Place, in convoy and armed. When they arrived, Mr Huritu was seen facing them with a firearm in his possession. He and his family, who were present at 18 Claridge Place, had to escaped out the back of their property, over a fence into a neighbouring property at 31 Oleander Lane where the occupant allowed them to hide out in his garage. The jury, by their verdicts, found that Mr Huritu took the shotguns with him. One was a sawn-off shotgun and therefore classified as a pistol, the other was the pump action shotgun with a skull design on the stock that I have already referred to.
[57] The jury found Mr Huritu guilty of unlawfully possessing both firearms, but they also found you and Mr Huritu guilty of unlawfully possessing the pump action shotgun with the skull design. The jury’s verdict means they accepted that you had the ability to control this firearm, even though it had been in the physical possession of Mr Huritu and I must sentence you on that basis.
Vehicle stop 12 June 2020
[58] On 12 June 2020, a vehicle driven by Moko Chong, a patched member Mongols, was stopped by the Police. The vehicle was searched and a Magnum revolver was found concealed in a tissue box with live ammunition in its chamber. You were the passenger in that vehicle. Subsequently, Moko Chong pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing the revolver and ammunition.
[59] You were found guilty by the jury at trial of these charges as well.26 The Crown case at trial was that you were either jointly in possession of these items with Mr
26 Charges 111 and 112.
Chong or that he took the blame for it on your behalf, being a more junior albeit patched member of the Mongols. The Crown pointed to similar ammunition being found at your address when your property was searched at termination and referred to the fact that you had pleaded guilty to possession of similar rounds of ammunition at the outset of the trial.
[60] Your defence at trial was that the revolver was secreted in a tissue box so it was not visible to you even though you were in the car. The jury did not accept this and, by its verdict, must have found that you had control over it and the ammunition in the chamber. I agree with the jury’s verdict. The revolver was loaded; in my view, it was intended to be used if you considered it necessary, with the risk of loss of life.
Firearms at Fred Whare’s house
[61] You were also found guilty of Charge 116, namely that you were in unlawful possession of prohibited firearms found at 3 Hastings Street, Te Puke, which was Frederick Whare’s address. These firearms were a BAR-15.223 Remington semi- automatic rifle and a Norinco Brand NHM-90 Sporter 9.62 x 39 mm semi-automatic firearm.
[62] You faced this charge with Hone Ronaki, and it was alleged that both of you, together with Wairaka Whare, were unlawfully in possession of those firearms. The charge was based on an intercepted communication where, in a text to Fred Whare, Hone Ronaki asked “Bro the cap wants to kno if you can take those guns”, to which Fred Whare responded “yeah bro”.
[63] You went into custody on 12 June 2020 and the firearms located during the search at Frederick Whare’s address occurred on 23 June 2020, therefore after your arrest. It was submitted on your behalf that you could not therefore have had control over them personally and the jury was invited to find there was no evidence that you had exercised any control over them through another person.
[64] The jury did not accept your defence and I must sentence you on the basis of their verdict.
Conclusion firearms
[65] So, in relation to all of these incidents, the firearms and the incidents at Haukore Street and 625 No. 2 Road, significant Police resources were diverted and the use of firearms, as well as the Mongols “arming up”, posed significant potential risks to the safety of the public.
Theft
Charge 90 – Joseph Pickard theft
[66] In relation to the charge of theft, this charge was amended during the trial. It was effectively split into two charges, one concerning Hone Ronaki27 and one which you continued to face. The Crown case was that between 17 April and 15 May 2020 you stole $13,000 from Joseph Pickard. The Crown case was that Mr Pickard had used the Mongols’ name when he ought not to have and so he was “taxed”. It was contended that you arranged or instructed others to take Mr Pickard’s vehicle on the understanding it would be returned once he had paid the sum of $13,000. The Crown case was that the $13,000 was given to you but the vehicle was not returned.
[67] Your defence was that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the money had in fact been paid, let alone that you were involved in it or that you even knew what had happened to the vehicle. But the jury did not accept your defence. By its verdict, it must have accepted that you knew the vehicle had not been returned and, as well, you retained the $13,000. The theft concerns the $13,000 and I must sentence you on the basis of the jury’s verdict.
Attempting to pervert the course of justice
[68] You were also found guilty of one charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice28 by the jury, and pleaded guilty to three other such charges at the outset of the trial.29
27 Charge 90A.
28 Charge 118.
29 Charges 189, 224 and 230.
[69] Charge 118 arises out of a note you passed to your partner while you were in prison on 16 September 2020. You have been visited by your partner but a prison officer considered that an item had been passed between you as she left. It was determined to strip search you but the evidence at trial was you became aggressive and threw a pen and book at prison officers’ feet. Inside the pen a rolled up piece of paper was found where the ink should have been. The note said, among other things:
I just want to get bail to sort, then come back and do my jail. I reckon I will serve 5 years. I am all good with that, just want bail. Once also I need a clear message to Rito and Block is shut their dog mouths. Tell Moks pled to that gun and I’ll get bail.
[70] Your defence was that the jury could not be sure you tried to pass the note to your partner but, even if they accepted that, you were simply asking her to tell those mentioned to exercise their right to silence. The jury did not accept your defence and, as I have said before, you must be sentenced on that basis.
[71] But you also pleaded guilty to three similar charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice at the outset of your trial.30
[72] Charge 189 concerned your attempt to pervert the course of justice by making your father responsible for the weapons found in your house on termination. Charge 224, a similar charge, related to you making your father take responsibility for the cannabis found in the house as well. And Charge 230 related to you saying that Frederick Whare would take responsibility for a shotgun found by the Police.
Approach to sentencing
[73] So, having outlined all of those facts, I now have to address and explain the approach I need to take in sentencing you.
[74] In sentencing you, I must consider the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act). While I must impose what is the least restrictive outcome, I must also take into account the gravity of your offending, including your degree of blameworthiness for it and the seriousness of the offending. Any sentence I
30 Charges 189, 224 and 230, Amended Crown Charge Note, 7 April 2022.
impose must denounce your conduct, deter both you and others from committing similar offences in the future and hold you accountable for the harm your offending has caused in the community.
[75] Determining the appropriate starting point requires me to set a “starting point” based on the seriousness of your offending based on the jury’s verdicts and your pleas. Having set the starting point, I then move on to consider circumstances personal to you, which produces the end sentence. And, finally, I will consider whether a minimum term of imprisonment (MPI) is necessary.
Starting point
[76] The lead offending is the methamphetamine offending, with uplifts for your other drug offending, firearms offending, money laundering, property and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
[77] The starting point, as I am sure your lawyer has explained to you for the methamphetamine offending, must be formulated by reference to the guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal in a case called Zhang v R.31 Quantity is an important measure of culpability or blameworthiness32 because it indicates commercial dealing and harm to the community. But the role an offender plays is also important in assessing their culpability or blameworthiness for their offending.33 Offenders may play lesser, significant or leading roles and starting points may be adjusted up or down in response to reduced or increased culpability through different roles.
[78] The case of Zhang, that I have just referred to, sets out five bands of offending based on quantity. Band five is the most serious, involving quantities of methamphetamine of more than two kilograms, with a penalty range starting at 10 years’ imprisonment and going up to life imprisonment. Based on what you accept and my determination of the quantum of methamphetamine involved in Charge 14, I have assessed, as I have said, the total amount of methamphetamine to be 20 kgs. This clearly places your case in band five of Zhang.
31 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648.
32 At [104].
33 Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143.
[79] In terms of your role, it is accepted that, as president, it can be fairly described as leading. I agree that this categorisation of your role is correct. In my view, as president, you were responsible for directing or organising the buying and selling of methamphetamine on a commercial scale. You had substantial links to and influence over those below you in the Mongols.
[80] You were in charge of the Mongols’ methamphetamine business and you expected the Mongols and yourself to profit financially from this business in a substantial way. However, although the Crown submitted that you also used other legitimate businesses as a cover, particularly your Taking Care of Bikes business and the Bladed and Faded barber shop business, there is no evidence that either of these businesses established themselves successfully in New Zealand.
[81] The fact that significant amounts of cash were not found or evidence of significant lavish lifestyles was not immediately apparent does not, in my view, detract from the fact that the Mongols’ methamphetamine drug dealing business was substantial and, in time, would have been very profitable indeed, but it was interrupted in part by COVID.
[82] As to where the money went, it is very clear that you all operated a cash economy. All of the members, apart from Mr Petrowski and the protected witness, and possibly some of the more junior members, had significant drug habits. Your cocaine habit alone would have required significant amounts of cash. The same can be said for Hone Ronaki’s use of methamphetamine. Almost all of those further down the chain appear to have had similar habits. Some were paid in methamphetamine, either to feed their own addictions or to operate their own smaller businesses on-selling to others. In addition to this, there would have been living expenses. I received some evidence on behalf of Mr Petrowski and Mr Collins-Haskins that they were being supported either by other businesses, their partner or family members and, no doubt, you too were being supported by your family and from income you received from your business in Australia.
[83] In addition, vehicles were bought and sold, often with cash. The evidence at trial establishes a motorbike that was subsequently sold for between $34,000 and
$37,000.34 There was a jet ski and presents from Louis Vuitton, and the Mercedes motor vehicle (AMLL) purchased by Kelly Petrowski shortly before the Malcom Avenue incident. The evidence at trial about this was that he offered to pay for the vehicle in cash.
[84] As well, the Mongols’ drug dealing business was relatively short-lived before you and others were arrested.
[85] The combination of your leading role and the quantity of methamphetamine involved clearly places you in the upper range of band five.
[86] It is agreed that you played a leading role in the offending and that is a responsible concession for you to have made. Several, but not all, of the factors in another case called Berkland are evident in your case. You directed and organised the enterprise on a commercial scale, the Ciphr phones and encrypted communications demonstrating one aspect of the organised nature of the Mongols’ drug business. You are a very charismatic person who inspires others. And as president, you influenced those below you in the chain and had the expectation of substantial financial gain.
[87] As I am then required to analyse the cases that justify the starting point I adopt, I have done so, I am not going to read those out now, but they will be included in my sentencing remarks.35
Case analysis
[88] The Crown submitted a starting point of 25 to 26 years’ imprisonment should be adopted, whereas your lawyer submitted a starting point of no more than 18 years is appropriate. Both parties referred to cases to compare your offending in determining where the starting point should fall.
[89] In Berkland v R, the Supreme Court heard two appeals for sentences imposed in relation to a significant methamphetamine supply operation.36 Mr Harding was the
34 Charge 97 – money laundering.
35 Paras [88]-[94] are only included in the written sentencing remarks as was signalled in [87].
36 Berkland v R, above n 33.
“kingpin” and “mastermind” of the operation and his offending involved at least 6.5 kilograms of methamphetamine. The Supreme Court found the high level of planning and premeditation and the fact Mr Harding controlled every aspect of the operation justified an uplift on the 18 year starting points that had generally been adopted in supply cases with offenders leading sophisticated networks distributing significant amounts.37 The Supreme Court adopted a starting point of 21 years’ imprisonment.
[90] In Fangupo v R, the Court of Appeal reduced the 19 year starting point set by the High Court to 17 years’ imprisonment.38 That case involved a “moderately leading” importer of 20 kilograms of methamphetamine. His leading role was evidenced by him being directly involved in purchasing methamphetamine from the United States on a commercial sale, substantial links to and influence on others in the enterprise, close connections with supplies and an expectation of substantial financial gain.
[91] In my view, your offending is similar to Mr Harding’s in Berkland in relation to your role. You were the overseer of everything that went on in the Mongols, you directed others where to go, what to do, and who with. You had the highest level of control over this drug dealing business. This warrants a higher starting point than what these two cases attracted. The amount of methamphetamine involved is over three times the amount in Mr Harding’s case, although on par with Fangupo.
[92] In Zhang v R, Mr Zhang received a starting point of 17 years’ imprisonment for one charge of importing 17.9 kilograms of methamphetamine, although the Court of Appeal observed that it would have adopted a starting point of 15 years under the new sentencing guidelines, having assessed the role played by Mr Zhang as at the lower end of significant.
[93] Again, your offending is more serious than Mr Zhang’s both in terms of your role and the amount. A higher starting point is justified.
37 Berkland v R, above n 33, at [48]-[49].
38 Fangupo v R [2020] NZCA 484.
[94] I adopted a starting point of 17 years for Mr Collins-Haskins’ methamphetamine offending based on a quantum of 15.5 kgs. I adopted a starting point of 19 years’ imprisonment for Mr Ronaki based on 16.58 kg of methamphetamine, however his situation was complicated because of the various conspiracy to supply charges. Mr Ross, Mr Huritu and Mr Petrowski all had quanta of methamphetamine that was less than yours.
[95] But, in my view, taking into account all of those matters and the cases, your leading role as well, I adopt a starting point of 22 years’ imprisonment.
Other drug-related offending
[96] I now need to consider what uplift should apply to reflect your cocaine and class B and class C drugs offending.
[97] In terms of your cocaine offending, you had four to seven ounces in your possession for the purposes of supply and five to eight plus other ounces in your possession for your own use. Given that cocaine is a class A controlled drug, the Crown does not seek an uplift for the cocaine offending and I agree with this. As will be outlined in more detail shortly, you had a significant addiction and I accept Mr Nabney’s submissions on your behalf that the supply of cocaine for the one charge was an isolated offence and not part of the overall Mongols’ operation at that time.
[98] In relation to the class B offending, there were the 512 pills, cannabis and cannabis oil to which I have already referred. But it was a large amount of cannabis, particularly in relation to the supply charge.
[99] The Crown submitted a starting point of 24 months or two years’ imprisonment on a standalone basis would be appropriate39 and your lawyer submitted six months.
[100] In my view, having regard to what we call parity with other defendants I have sentenced before you, I find a one year uplift to reflect your other drug offending charges is appropriate on a totality basis.
39 Citing Sinclair v Police [2021] NZHC 2788, where a starting point of 36 months’ imprisonment was adopted for cannabis offending involving approximately 3.8 kilograms of cannabis
[101] I deal with the participation in the organised criminal group drug dealing as part and parcel of this offending and adopt no further uplift in relation to it. I treat it as, rather, being reflected in the overall starting point adopted generally for your drug- related offending.
Firearms offending
[102] As to your firearms offending, all of it is serious. In terms of denunciation and deterrence, where firearms are used in conjunction with various drug offending, in my view a strong response is required. I do not entirely agree with the lawyers that the firearms offending is encompassed by the two reckless discharge charges. Certainly, the purpose of amassing the firearms and storing them and the ammunition manifested itself in these two incidents but, in my view, the fact that these firearms were effectively stock-piled for subsequent use is, in itself, serious and requires separate consideration.
[103] The firearms amassed were extremely dangerous. All of them were unlawfully possessed and some were prohibited weapons for good reason. The revolver found in the vehicle secreted in the tissue box was loaded, as was the shotgun found in the roof cavity to which I have already referred.
[104] You, as the leader, were responsible for authorising and amassing these firearms. It is a miracle that no one, especially not the children at Haukore Street, were killed during the incident that occurred there. Because of the retaliatory nature of gang warfare, you failed to appreciate that your family could also have been at risk of a retaliatory attack or that other innocent members of the public could have been harmed or killed
[105] Both lawyers referred me to cases which might assist me to adopt their respective starting points. The Crown submitted an uplift of four years’ imprisonment, whereas your lawyer submitted it ought to be three years, taking into account as well Charge 2 the organised criminal group violence. I agree that Charge 2 should be part
of this uplift. And in my written remarks I will also go through the cases that justify the starting point I am about to explain to you.40
[106] In Rawiri v Police, cited by the Crown, the defendant was sentenced for one charge of reckless discharge, possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition.41 A starting point of 24 months was imposed. Your firearms offending is significantly more serious than Rawiri.
[107] The Crown referred to a case called R v Waihape, where a starting point of six years’ imprisonment was adopted for organised criminal group and firearms offences.42
[108] The Crown submitted that, on a standalone basis, the organised criminal group charge in relation to violence and the totality of the firearm charges would warrant a starting point of eight to 10 years’ imprisonment. On a totality basis, the Crown submitted an uplift of four years’ imprisonment is appropriate.
[109] Your lawyer distinguishes your offending from Waihape as, in that case, actual injuries were inflicted. Further, your lawyer submitted that, in relation to No. 2 Road, you could not have planned the incident because the Mongrel Mob arrived en masse and the resulting exchange of fire followed. He submitted this is relevant to the uplift I choose to adopt which, as outlined, he submitted should be an uplift of three years’ imprisonment.
[110] I adopted an uplift of three years for Hone Ronaki. He had 20 firearms unlawfully in his possession and, like you, the two charges relating to Haukore Street and 625 No. 2 Road. Fewer firearms were found to be unlawfully in your possession, but you were the leader. I do not agree that you would not have known about the number of firearms available to the rest of the Mongols should they need to be used. I adopt an uplift of three years’ imprisonment, which I note was similar to that which your lawyer submitted was appropriate. But I say to you, four years could easily have been justified as well.
40 Paras [106]-[109] are only included in the written sentencing remarks as was signalled in [105].
41 Rawiri v Police [2022] NZHC 2466.
42 R v Waihape [2012] NZHC 198.
Money laundering
[111] Then dealing with the money laundering charges. The Crown submitted this would warrant a starting point of between two and two and a half years’ imprisonment on a standalone basis. But, your lawyer submitted the money laundering involved was not particularly sophisticated. The money constituted at least some of the proceeds of drug dealing and were openly spent. I note that the Crown submitted the fact the money offending relating to your drug dealing offending is particularly aggravating.
[112] The total amount involved was somewhere between $54,000 and $57,000, but there was also the black bike of between $34,000 and $37,000 and the purchase and subsequent disposal of the jet ski and trailer.
[113]I then refer to the cases. Again, I won’t read them out.43
[114] The Crown cited two cases to justify the suggested starting point your money laundering offending would warrant. In Karaka, the offender attempted to launder
$100,000 by putting cash through his own bank account, receiving a starting point of two years’ imprisonment.44 In R v Grigaliunas, the offender was the final courier apprehended with $100,000 in his possession.45 He received a starting point of two and a half years’ imprisonment. Your offending involved a lesser amount of money, but I agree with the Crown that a starting point near that mark would have been warranted as a starting point.
[115] But, overall, the lawyers do not disagree that an uplift of one year’ imprisonment on a totality basis is appropriate. And I am prepared to agree with that.
Remaining charges
[116] Then there are the remaining charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice and theft. The Crown submits an uplift of one year is appropriate. I agree that an uplift of one year’ imprisonment is justified for these.
43 Para [114] is only included in the written sentencing remarks as was signalled in [113].
44 R v Karaka DC Auckland CRI-2009-004-1879, 29 January 2009.
45 R v Grigaliunas DC Auckland CRI-2009-004-1879, 29 January 2009.
Conclusion – starting point
[117] So, taking all of these matters into account, the end starting point for you is one of 28 years’ imprisonment.
Personal and mitigating matters
[118] I now turn to your personal and mitigating matters. You pleaded guilty at the outset of the trial to the charges I have referred, and I consider you are entitled to a reduction for your pleas because you took responsibility for some of your offending, particularly the offending involving attempts to pervert the course of justice by endeavouring to have others take responsibility for the cannabis and firearms.
[119]Mr Nabney submitted five per cent was appropriate.
[120] As well, a s 27 report has been prepared for you. And there was a Provision of Advice to Courts (PAC) report and the five written references that were provided to me by your uncle, two longstanding family friends, the manager of Taking Care of Bikes in Beenleigh, as well as confirmation from the employer of a person in respect of which a significant donation was given by you and your business to assist her following a health crisis. And I also heard from your mother today.
[121] The references have helped me to understand more about the person you are when you are separated from gang activities.
[122] Mr Thacker, you are 33 years of age. Your family and partner remain committed and supportive of you. You have a teenage son. As a result of your offending, you will be absent from his life in a practical way for many years. This is a tragedy. You acknowledge and understand the impact of your offending and what it has had on your family which is, in my view, is a start because the next step is to acknowledge the impact that your offending has on other families just like yours. And, in this regard, I acknowledge what your mother has said today where she and other members of your family, I accept, understand this.
[123] The truth of the matter is that methamphetamine creates misery. It creates misery not only for those who become addicted to it but also for their families. People who are addicted are absent emotionally and psychologically from their families. Often addiction creates financial hardship and, in some cases, violence. The impact of addiction on those closest to addicts are well known and documented. Often these impacts have inter-generational effects. Those who deal in highly addictive drugs, such as methamphetamine, create and perpetuate this misery. It has an impact on society as a whole. This is why the courts talk about the need to denounce and deter in sentences it imposes for offending of this kind.
[124] I found the s 27 report prepared for you very instructive and helpful. And can I say, I read it and the references provided about you as a person several times.
[125] You identify as Māori through your whakapapa to Tapuika and Ngāti Awa in the Bay of Plenty. Your father is Pākehā. When you were four years of age, your family moved to Australia. Your parents worked extremely hard and provided well for you and your sisters. You appear to have thrived in Australia although, in terms of your Māori heritage, the report writer notes that cultural disconnection is a feature.
[126] You became a father at 19 years of age, and you and your partner have been together since you were at least 16. Your bond and commitment to each other is strong.
[127] At one point while you were living in Australia, the report writer notes you were a contributing member of society, working at one point in the mines in North Western Australia. You worked very hard and you returned to Queensland with significant savings and started Taking Care of Bikes. You worked very hard at your business. You began by cleaning motorcycles and expanded into motorcycle towing and mechanical repairs. You are obviously extremely talented at what you did because your business expanded very quickly and was very successful financially. It is difficult to understand, with the strong family support you had, the role model of hard work and the successful businesses you operated, how you pivoted into a gang. I mention this understanding that you have whānau connections with gangs but they mostly appear to be through your mother’s connections in Te Puke and you, of course, were brought up in Australia. Although your father has an avid interest in motorcycles and
may have socialised with various motorcycle riding groups in Queensland, including gangs, there is no suggestion he was part of gang life.
[128] You became a patched member of Highway 61 in Australia but did not stay long with that club. You then joined the Bandidos. As the report writer noted and I agree, your membership of this club ultimately became your undoing in Australia, as you were convicted of being involved in a gang-related riot. But I have noted that you were only sentenced to community service for that and I have heard and listened carefully to what your mother said about that today. But this resulted, definitely for the worse in your case, to you being deported back to New Zealand. But I note, to make it easier for your family, I believe you eventually left voluntarily.
[129] I have absolutely no doubt that your return to New Zealand was traumatic for you. Although a New Zealand citizen, your life has been in Australia. It is easy to see how, even though your family returned with you to New Zealand, you struggled to feel a sense of belonging here. That being the case, it is also easy to understand how your gang connections provided you with some support. You established contacts with the New Zealand Bandidos and were elevated very quickly to a high ranking position in this organisation, before you were de-patched but you were absolutely instrumental in setting up the Mongols in New Zealand.
[130] Unfortunately, after being deported from Australia to New Zealand, you become addicted to cocaine and you also suffered diminished mental health. I agree with the report writer that your addiction to cocaine was likely an attempt by you, at least initially, to cope with your situation. However, as is often the case, it led to paranoia and drug psychosis and what, it is submitted on your behalf, and I absolutely agree with, was a diminished sense of wellbeing and poor decision-making.
[131] A psychological report was obtained in May 2023. The conclusion is that, again through no fault of your own, you suffer from a major depressive disorder. These issues were likely pre-existing your confinement in custody, especially latterly in the PERU Unit. I agree with your lawyer that your mental health issues have been pre-existing but they have been exacerbated or made worse by the nature of your
confinement. However, it cannot be ignored that your behaviour in prison has been extremely non-compliant. The PAC report outlines the extent of this.
[132] Both the Crown and Mr Nabney agree that there is a nexus between your offending and your background, with a discount of between 15 and 20 per cent being referred to by both as appropriate.
[133] I agree that a 15 per cent discount is warranted for the factors referred to in your s 27 report but, in addition to this, a further five per cent for the pleas you entered which results in deductions of 20 per cent as your lawyer submitted were appropriate.
Conclusion
[134]So, your end sentence includes the:
(a) starting point of 22 years for the methamphetamine;
(b) an uplift of one year for other drug-related offending, apart from the cocaine which is excluded;
(c) an uplift of three years for firearms offending;
(d) an uplift of one year for money laundering; and
(e) an uplift of one year for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
[135] The starting point for your term of imprisonment, as I have outlined, was 28 years.
[136] A 20 per cent deduction is applied which results in a term of 22 years four months.
Minimum period of imprisonment (MPI)
[137]I now address whether a minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed.
[138] The Crown seeks a minimum term of 10 years. Mr Nabney’s submission was that an MPI was not required but, if I disagreed, he submitted it should be the same as I have imposed for Hone Ronaki, one of 40 per cent. But, in his written submissions, and I think properly, he noted that up to 50 per cent could be justified.
[139] In Zhang v R,46 the Court of Appeal upheld a 50 per cent MPI where an appellant was being sentenced for commercial-scale drug dealing and where a co- offender, who had a principal role in the offending, required a similar 50 per cent MPI.47 The Court of Appeal also observed that MPIs should not be imposed mechanistically or as a matter of routine.48 Lengthy MPIs are to be reserved for cases featuring significant commercial drug dealing,49 in other words, for the most deserving cases.50
[140] Under s 86(2) of the Sentencing Act, I may impose an MPI if I am satisfied the minimum period of one-third is insufficient for the purposes of accountability, denunciation, deterrence and community protection. I recognise that the serious nature of your offending calls for, in particular, deterrence and denunciation.
[141] You were the president of the Mongols, the highest in the chain of command. You were in charge of and oversaw the drug dealing business the Mongols ran and profited from. You exploited others’ addictions for financial gain, including some of the members below you in the gang. The drug dealing operation involved kilograms of methamphetamine and other drugs. As I have outlined, commercial-scale drug dealing comes with very serious social consequences and the harm caused is usually felt inter-generationally.
[142] You pleaded not guilty to most charges you faced and for which you have now been sentenced. You have acknowledged the impact your offending has had on your family but have yet to acknowledge the harm it has caused to the wider community. This emphasises the need for accountability. As well, denunciation and deterrence
46 Zhang v R, above n 31, at [263].
47 At [280].
48 At [169] and [174].
49 At [171].
50 Sentencing Act, s 8(c).
assume particular importance because of the commercial-scale and your leading role in it.
[143] Based on the four purposes provided in s 86(2), in my view, a minimum period of one-third does not suffice. I imposed, as I have said, a minimum period of imprisonment of 40 per cent for both Mr Collins-Haskins and Hone Ronaki. I assess your offending as more serious and the need to ensure the purposes under s 86(2) are greater. So, in my view, a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent is appropriate.
[144] Mr Thacker, can I say this to you personally, you are a man of considerable talent. There are two sides to you. There is the side that we heard about during the trial but there is also the side that your mother spoke to me about so eloquently today. A person who is loving and kind and generous. A person who can use good things to achieve good outcomes. But, as Ms Pollett rightly submitted, there are some choices you need to make about which path you want to travel down from hereon in. And, unfortunately, because of your offending, I have needed to impose on you today a significant term of imprisonment. There will be opportunities for you, depending on how you deal with it, to improve your situation during your incarceration. I hope for you, for your whānau and others that you do this.
Result
[145]Could you please stand.
[146] I sentence you to a term of 22 years and four months’ imprisonment and impose an MPI of 50 per cent in respect of this sentence.
[147]Thank you. Stand down please.
Addendum
[148] Counsel requested a brief discussion with me after the sentencing was complete. It was pointed out that the legislation states that the maximum MPI that can
be imposed is 10 years, which I had regrettably overlooked. I therefore impose an MPI of 10 years’ imprisonment.
Harland J
Jim Thacker - Schedule of Charges and Sentences
Methamphetamine offending
| Charge No.51 | Charge | Quantum / Description | Sentence52 | |
| CCL | CCN | |||
| 1 | Participated in an organised criminal group (guilty at trial) | Distributing and supplying class A, B and C controlled drugs | 7 years | |
| 14 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty at trial) | 3 kilograms | 22 years 4 months | |
| 16 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty at trial) | 2 kilograms | 22 years 4 months | |
| 17 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty at trial) | 2 kilograms | 22 years 4 months | |
| 21 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty at trial) | 2 kilograms | 22 years 4 months | |
| 28 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty at trial) | 2 kilograms | 22 years 4 months | |
| 29 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty at trial) | 2 kilograms | 22 years 4 months | |
| 35 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty at trial) | 2 kilograms | 22 years 4 months | |
| 37 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty at trial) | 1 kilogram | 22 years 4 months | |
| 39 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty at trial) | 2 kilograms | 22 years 4 months | |
| 42 | Supplying methamphetamine (guilty at trial) | 3 kilograms | 22 years 4 months | |
| 46 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty at trial) | 3 kilograms | 22 years 4 months | |
Cocaine offending
| Charge No. | Charge | Quantum / Description | Sentence | |
| CCL | CCN | |||
| 25 | Possession of cocaine (guilty at trial) | 5 to 8 ounces | 1 year | |
| 26 | Possession of cocaine for supply (guilty at trial) | 2 to 5 ounces | 1 year | |
| 27 | Did supply cocaine (guilty at trial) | 2 ounces | 1 year | |
| 32 | Possession of cocaine (guilty at trial) | Ounces | 1 year | |
| 228 | Possession of cocaine (guilty plea before trial on 9 August 2022) | 811 milligrams for personal use, in roof cavity | 5 months | |
CCL = Crown Charge List. CCN = Crown Charge Notice (used for guilty pleas prior to trial).
Mr Thacker’s end sentence is 22 years and four months’ imprisonment, with an MPI of 10 years’ imprisonment.
Class B Drug offending
| Charge No. | Charge | Quantum / Description | Sentence | |
| CCL | CCN | |||
| 10 | Possession of a Class B controlled drug for supply (guilty at trial) | 25I-NBOMe pills picked up from Marko in Johnsonville (thinking they were MDMA) | 2 years | |
| 24 | Possession of a Class B controlled drug for supply (guilty at trial) | 512 pills of 25I-NBOMe | 2 years | |
Cannabis offending
| Charge No. | Charge | Quantum / Description | Sentence | |
| CCL | CCN | |||
| 212 | Did supply cannabis (guilty plea before trial on 9 August 2022) | No particulars | Convicted and discharged53 | |
| 225 | Possession of cannabis for sale (guilty plea before trial on 9 August 2022) | 1,056 grams found at house in roof cavity | 18 months | |
| 229 | Possession of cannabis oil (guilty plea before trial on 9 August 2022) | 3 jars located in roof cavity (approximately 244 grams) | 4 months | |
Firearms offending
| Charge No. | Charge | Quantum / Description | Sentence | |
| CCL | CCN | |||
| 2 | Participated in an organised criminal group (guilty at trial) | Commission of serious violent offences | 3 years | |
| 3 | Unlawful possession of ammunition (guilty plea before trial on 9 August 2022) | .357 ammunition found in his bedroom at 190 Settlement Road | 3 months | |
| 3 | Unlawful possession of firearms (guilty at trial) | Firearms in box and suitcase at the protected witness’s address (including AK47s and AR15) | 2 years | |
| 4 | Unlawful possession of ammunition (guilty at trial) | 7.62 rounds (for AK47 firearms) | 6 months | |
| 5 | Unlawful possession of ammunition (guilty at trial) | 223 rounds (for AR15 firearms) | 1 year | |
| 11 | Unlawful possession of firearms (guilty at trial) | Items collected in Marko in Johnsonville: 8 mm pistol, 12 gauge shotgun, Silver pistol grip, long Range hunting rifle, | 2 years | |
53 Amended under r 1.6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012, based on the decision in a minute of 9 August 2022 to amend charge 212 to a category 1 offence, which was overlooked when setting the sentence for this charge.
| .22 with revolving mag, pistol grip pump shot gun with skull design | |||
| 13 | Unlawful possession of ammunition (guilty at trial) | Ammunition collected from Marko in Johnsonville: 8mm rounds, shotgun shells and a few 22 rounds | 6 months |
| 54 | Discharging a firearm with reckless disregard (guilty at trial) | Shooting at Haukore Street. 96 rounds fired into the lounge of the address | 3 years |
| 55 | Unlawful possession of prohibited firearms (guilty at trial) | Firearms used at Haukore Street: Bushmaster XM15- E2S, DPMS Panther Rifles A-15 x 2, Ranger AK47, Windham weaponry WW15 | 3 years |
| 56 | Discharging a firearm with reckless disregard (guilty at trial) | Firearms used at 625 No. 2 Road | 3 years |
| 57 | Unlawful possession of prohibited firearms (guilty at trial) | Firearms used at 625 No. 2 Road: Bushmaster XM15, DPMS Panther Rifle A-15, Windham weaponry WW15, Ranger NHM-90 | 3 years |
| 100 | Unlawful possession of a firearm (guilty at trial) | ERA brand 12 gauge Game King model–sawn off shotgun | 1 year |
| 101 | Unlawful possession of a firearm (guilty at trial) | Gun City 870 Magnum long- barrelled shotgun (inside L4WL3S) | 1 year |
| 102 | Unlawful possession of explosives (guilty at trial) | Five shotgun shells (loaded inside shotgun – charge 101) | 1 year |
| 109 | Unlawful possession of firearms/pistols (guilty at trial) | Khan Brand A-TAC pump action shotgun with skull design | 1 year |
| 111 | Unlawful possession of a firearm (guilty at trial) | A loaded .357 Magnum revolver in the footwell of MRA705 | 2 years |
| 112 | Unlawful possession of ammunition (guilty at trial) | Four live .357 calibre rounds | 6 months |
| 116 | Unlawful possession of prohibited firearms (guilty at trial) | Firearms found at 3 Hastings St, Te Puke: BAR-15, a .223 Remington semi-automatic rifle and a Norinco brand | 2 years |
| 186 | Unlawful possession of a pistol (guilty plea before trial on 9 August 2022) | Pistol grip pimp action shotgun | 1 year |
| 187 | Unlawful possession of a pistol (guilty plea before trial on 9 August 2022) | Sawn off 12 gauge shot gun | 1 year |
| 188 | Unlawful possession of explosives (guilty plea before trial on 9 August 2022) | Unlawful possession of explosives: 35 rounds of .22 calibre ammunition, 37 x 12 gauge shot gun ammunition | 6 months |
| 226 | Unlawful possession of a firearm (guilty plea before trial on 9 August 2022) | Akkar brand Altay model 12 gauge semi automatic shotgun located in roof cavity | 18 months |
| 227 | Unlawful possession of ammunition (guilty plea before trial on 9 August 2022) | 5 x 12 Falcon brand 12 gauge shotgun ammunition (loaded in firearm at charge 226) | 6 months |
Theft and money laundering offending
| Charge No. | Charge | Quantum / Description | Sentence | |
| CCL | CCN | |||
| 33 | Money laundering (guilty at trial) | Purchases in excess of $20,000 in Auckland prior to Christmas | 1 year | |
| 52 | Money laundering (guilty at trial) | Purchase and subsequent disposal of the Sea-Doo jet ski and trailer (reg 53S65) | 2 years | |
| 90 | Theft (guilty at trial) | $13,000 | 2 years | |
| 97 | Money laundering (guilty at trial) | Selling black bike for between $34,000 and $37,000 (found on Frederick Whare on 5 May 2020) | 2 years | |
| 107 | Theft (pleaded guilty 31 October 2022) | Stole a Greasy Dogs sweatshirt from one of the gang’s junior members at Caltex service station. | 3 months | |
Perverting the course of justice offending
| Charge No. | Charge | Quantum / Description | Sentence | |
| CCL | CCN | |||
| 118 | Attempting to pervert the course of justice (guilty at trial) | Note passed to partner in prison | 1 year | |
| 189 | Attempting to pervert the course of justice (guilty plea before trial on 9 August 2022) | Making his father responsible for weapons | 1 year | |
| 224 | Attempting to pervert the course of justice (guilty plea before trial on 9 August 2022) | Making his father take responsibility for cannabis found in house | 1 year | |
| 230 | Attempting to pervert the course of justice (guilty plea before trial on 9 August 2022) | Saying Frederick Whare would take responsibility for a shotgun | 1 year | |
Act and maximum penalty relating to each charge
Charges 1 and 2, Crown Charge List end of trial, Crimes Act 1961, s 98A - maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
Charges 10 and 24, Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(c), 6(1)(f) and 6(2) - maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
Charges 14, 16, 28, 35, 37, 39 and 46, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2) - maximum penalty life imprisonment.
Charges 17, 21, 29 and 42, Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2) - maximum penalty life imprisonment.
Charge 32, Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 7(1)(a) and 7(2)(a) – maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $1,000.
Charges 25 and 26, Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2) – maximum penalty life imprisonment.
Charge 27, Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(d) and 6(2) - maximum penalty life imprisonment.
Charge 225, Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(e) – maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.
Charge 229, Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 7(1)(a) and 7(2)(b) – maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $500.
Charges 33, 52 and 97, Crimes Act, s 243(2) - maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
Charges 54 and 56, Crimes Act 1961, ss 66 and 198(2) - maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
Charges 3, 11, 100, 101, 109 and 111, Arms Act 1983, s 45(1) and Crimes Act, s 413 - maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment.
Charges 4, 5, 13 and 112, Arms Act, ss 45(1) and Crimes Act, s 413 - maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
Charges 55, 57 and 116, Arms Act, s 50A - maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment. Charge 90, Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(b) - maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment. Charge 118, Crimes Act, ss 117(e) - maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
0
6
0