Legal Research
Cases
The King v Rene Bell

The King v Rene Bell

Case [2024] NZHC 2674 16 September 2024

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-009-8205

[2024] NZHC 2674

THE KING

v

RENE BELL

Hearing: 16 September 2024

Appearances:

B Hawes for Crown

A C Kelland for Defendant

Sentenced:

16 September 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF OSBORNE J

Introduction

[1] Mr Bell, I am going to ask you to remain seated. Because we have got a number of matters to deal with, the sentencing will take a bit longer than would normally be the case so, I am afraid, you will have to just bear with me. At the end I will ask you to stand when I am indicating the outcome.

[2] Mr Bell, you appear at 46 years of age for sentence, having pleaded guilty to one charge of money laundering.1 A conviction has not yet been entered on the basis you are applying for a discharge without conviction. You also seek name suppression on a permanent basis. I will first consider what I consider an appropriate sentence would be, were you not to be discharged without conviction. I will then discuss your

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 243(2); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

R v BELL [2024] NZHC 2674 [16 September 2024]

application for discharge without conviction and, finally, I will consider name suppression.

The offending

[3] Your offending arises out of a significant police investigation, code-named ‘Operation Mist’, into the importation and supply of cocaine into New Zealand from South America. The investigation involved co-operation with overseas drug enforcement authorities and commenced after New Zealand Customs intercepted a number of cocaine importations destined for rural Canterbury addresses. The drug syndicate operated from at least January 2018 to December 2021. It is estimated
42.5 kilograms of cocaine with a street price of over $19 million was imported into New Zealand. A further 59.1 kilograms of cocaine with a street value of more than
$26 million was also intercepted.

[4] When the operation was terminated in November 2021, you were one of those arrested and charged. Your offending involved one discrete money laundering transaction in September 2021. You are not said to be otherwise involved in Operation Mist.

[5] At the time you pleaded guilty, you agreed with the summary of facts presented by the Crown which I will now summarise.

[6] In September 2021, an arrangement was made to launder $200,500 in Christchurch and remit the money back to Colombia. A drug enforcement agent working with police picked up the “contract” to launder the money. The cash was proceeds from the sale of cocaine.

[7] On 16 September 2021, you met an undercover police officer at a café in Heathcote, Christchurch. You gave the police officer $200,500 cash packaged in a shoe box. As a token of receipt of the handover, the police officer gave you a $5 note with a serial number on it. You signed, dated and wrote the figure “$200,400” on the
$5 note before sending to a third party a photo 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 The King v Rene Bell

Details

AGLC: The King v Rene Bell [2024] NZHC 2674
Case: [2024] NZHC 2674
Decision Date: 16 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Christchurch Registry, the court heard a case against Rene Bell, who was charged with one count of money laundering. The court considered the nature of the charge, the background of the case, and the appropriate sentence for the offence. The court also deliberated on the defendant's application for a discharge without conviction and name suppression.

The court determined the appropriate sentence for the money laundering charge, considering factors such as the total amount laundered, the sophistication of the operation, and the defendant's level of culpability. The court found that the defendant's culpability was moderate, and after applying various credits and considering aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined a starting point sentence of 22 months imprisonment. However, due to the defendant's rehabilitative prospects, lack of criminal history, and the desirability of allowing the defendant to continue working in their business, the court decided on a sentence of six months' community detention instead.

The court then considered the defendant's application for a discharge without conviction, which requires the court to determine whether the consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. The court found that the consequences of a conviction were not disproportionate, as the defendant had a history of dishonesty-related convictions and the nature of the offence was significant.

Finally, the court examined the defendant's application for name suppression. The court found that the consequences of publication were not likely to cause extreme hardship, as the defendant had already faced publication and the effects on their business and family were not severe enough to meet the threshold for extreme hardship. Therefore, the application for name suppression was declined.

In conclusion, the court convicted Rene Bell on the charge of money laundering and sentenced him to six months' community detention. The court also denied the application for a discharge without conviction and name suppression.

Orders