The Queen v Klokstad - [2009] NZCA 503

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA459/2009
[2009] NZCA 503
THE QUEEN
v
MONICA JANE KLOKSTAD
Hearing:15 October 2009

Court:Glazebrook, Potter and Wild JJ
Counsel:C B Cato for Appellant

B D Tantrum for Crown

Judgment:22 October 2009 at 4.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.
___________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Potter J)
Introduction
[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to:
(a)Three counts of importing the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine; and
(b)One count of conspiring to import methamphetamine.

[2]        The appellant was sentenced by Simon France J in the High Court at Wellington on 17 July 2009 to eight years and three months’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of four years. She appeals against the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive and that the four year minimum period of imprisonment is inappropriate.
Background facts
[3]        The appellant made three specific importations of methamphetamine between March and May 2007. The conspiracy charge covered an earlier period between 1 November 2006 and 1 February 2007 during which there were two known importations of methamphetamine on 7 and 27 January 2007. On each occasion the quantity of methamphetamine imported was 52-56 grams and each importation had a value between $52,000 and $56,000. The total quantity of methamphetamine imported by the appellant was between 260-280 grams with a value between $260,000 and $280,000.
[4]        The appellant became criminally involved in the importation of methamphetamine through her late uncle, Godfrey Sadaraka, who died in July 2006. Mr Sadaraka had been in custody in Rimutaka Prison with other members of a methamphetamine syndicate who together developed the plan for importation of the drugs from Thailand.
[5]        Mr Sadaraka became the head of the Auckland based group of the syndicate. A Mr Ian Nuku was the head of the Wellington group of the syndicate. The Judge described the appellant as taking over the role of Mr Sadaraka as head of the Auckland group following his death.
[6]        The various importations were organised through a Thai woman resident in New Zealand. The drugs were sent by a second Thai woman resident in Thailand. The drugs were placed in Nivea cosmetic containers stored amongst items of clothing and the like. On each occasion the drugs were sent to a post office box.   In Wellington they were sent to a new box for each importation, in Auckland to the same box but with different addressees.
[7]        When the central contact person in Thailand was arrested the meticulous records she kept were accessed. They included what was sent and when, the track and trace number for each package and the quantity, and also the payments she received from New Zealand.
[8]        The appellant’s role in these importations was summarised by the Judge at [24] of the sentencing notes:
Further, here is what Ms Klokstad has done. She has taken over a drug importation ring initially run by her uncle. She has arranged importations. She has personally organised the transfer 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 Queen v Klokstad

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Klokstad [2009] NZCA 503
Case: [2009] NZCA 503
Decision Date: 22 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in the case of The Queen v Monica Jane Klokstad, heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, concerns the sentencing of the appellant who pleaded guilty to three counts of importing methamphetamine and one count of conspiring to import the drug. The appellant, represented by C B Cato, contests the severity of the eight-year-and-three-month sentence, inclusive of a four-year minimum non-parole period, imposed by Simon France J in the High Court at Wellington. The appeal hinges on the appellant's contention that the sentence is manifestly excessive and that the four-year minimum period is inappropriate.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal pertain to whether the starting point for sentencing was correctly determined and if the discount for the appellant's guilty plea and the imposition of a minimum term of imprisonment were appropriate. The Court considered whether the starting point for sentencing, set at eleven years, was excessive given the circumstances and whether the discount for the guilty plea was adequately justified. Additionally, the Court assessed whether the imposition of a four-year minimum term of imprisonment was warranted, considering the absence of a need to protect the public from the appellant.

The Court of Appeal, in its judgment delivered by Potter J, found that the starting point for sentencing was appropriately set at eleven years, given the appellant's significant role in the importation of methamphetamine and her involvement in multiple importations and conspiracy. The Court upheld the Judge's assessment of the discount for the guilty plea, finding that the 25% discount was reasonable given the late timing of the plea. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the four-year minimum period of imprisonment was justified in light of the gravity of the appellant's offending and the need for stern responses to high-level drug importation activities. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the sentence imposed by the High Court.

Orders