R v Edmands
| Jurisdiction | New Zealand |
| Judge | Fitzgerald J |
| Judgment Date | 22 February 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NZHC 246 |
| Docket Number | CRI-2020-004-1035 |
| Court | High Court |
[2022] NZHC 246
Fitzgerald J
CRI-2020-004-1035
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
Criminal Sentence — sentencing for participation in an organised criminal group and failing to carry out obligations relating to a computer search — sophisticated large scale drug operation — personal mitigating factors — addiction causative of offending justifying a discount — rehabilitation efforts — Crimes Act 1961 — Search and Surveillance Act 2012
BN Kirkpatrick for the Crown
PK Hamlin and SJ Vincent for Mr Edmands
P Hamlin, Auckland
S Vincent, Auckland
Mr Edmands, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of participation in an organised criminal group 1 and one charge of failing to carry out obligations relating to a computer search, namely failing to give the Police the PIN to your cell phone. 2 The maximum sentence for participation in an organised criminal group is 10 years' imprisonment, and the maximum sentence for the failure to provide Police with your PIN is three months' imprisonment.
The organised criminal group which you were a part of was a sophisticated syndicate dealing in large quantities of controlled drugs, including methamphetamine. I say at the outset that methamphetamine is a terrible drug; it wrecks havoc on New Zealand communities, and inflicts misery on users and their families alike. The courts witness the consequences of this drug, and the raft of offending it leads to, on a daily basis.
I also observe at the outset however, that you were not a leading player in this syndicate, though that is not to diminish your importance to it; syndicates like that in which you became involved rely on all participants playing their part, no matter their level of “seniority”. But the materials provided to the Court also suggest that your participation in this group was caused in a not insignificant way by your own addition to methamphetamine.
I think it is appropriate to tell you at the outset that I do not propose to sentence you today to a term of imprisonment. Rather, taking into account all the features of this case, I consider a sentence of home detention is appropriate. I should emphasise that this is not a “soft option”; home detention is still a difficult sentence. But what you should take from this Mr Edmands, is that this should be a watershed moment for you in your life. It appears that you have made good progress in turning your life around in the last two years. Make sure that change sticks. Do not get sucked into the terrible life that accompanies methamphetamine again. Should you come before the
While I have told you what the end sentence will be today, it is nevertheless important that you, those in the court here today, both in person and via electronic means, and the community more broadly, know why I have come to this result. So I will now explain my reasons for reaching the conclusion that I have, and the length of home detention that I am going to sentence you to.
I first summarise the factual background to your offending.
From May 2019 to March 2020, you participated in a large-scale drug importation and distribution syndicate. Police terminated their investigation into the syndicate in February 2020. As part of that termination, you and a number of codefendants were arrested.
The syndicate was orchestrated from overseas by a person who recruited members to act in various roles. Some were “storage” or “storemen”. They stockpiled and repackaged drugs — methamphetamine, cocaine and MDMA. Others were “runners” and/or “drivers”. They delivered drugs and collected cash payments.
Your role in the syndicate was as a “catcher” — you collected and delivered sealed packages sent to you domestically. You were known by syndicate members as “Massive”. You were aware that the packages would contain considerable sums of cash for forwarding on behalf of the leader of the syndicate. On one occasion, an international package containing drugs was sent to your address.
The precise number of packages you dealt with cannot be determined. However, police identified the following:
-
(a) In November 2019, police located an empty courier bag addressed to your home address and a note “Massive $2,150” in an apartment used by another syndicate member.
-
(b) On 20 December 2019, two other syndicate members discussed a box which one of them had obtained from “Massive”.
-
(c) On 30 January 2020, another syndicate member picked up a parcel from you. On 31 January 2020, a screenshot of a list on a syndicate member's phone included the entry “Massive $130,000”.
-
(d) During 2019, two syndicate members picked up a large, sealed international courier package from your house. This package was later found to contain controlled drugs.
-
(e) When the investigation was terminated in February 2020, three discarded empty courier bags were located at a workshop used by the syndicate. All three were addressed to your home address.
-
(f) On 3 March 2020, during a search of your address, police found two white envelopes with “Massive” and “M” written on them in packaging used by the syndicate. They also found methamphetamine pipes and related materials, as well as a slip of plastic packaging in your car which contained traces of methamphetamine and cocaine.
In return for your work for the drug syndicate, you received methamphetamine for your own use in amounts of up to an ounce, along with relatively modest sums of cash. At times, you also would also buy methamphetamine from the syndicate.
As part of the termination of the police operation, your cellphone was seized. You were asked to provide the PIN number to it but you declined to do so. You have since continued to refuse access to your cellphone.
I will now briefly describe the purpose and process of your sentencing today.
As I have said, your offending involved supporting a large-scale drug syndicate. Given the seriousness with which drug offending is viewed by the New Zealand courts, the main purpose of your sentence is to deter you and others from engaging in similar drug-related activity, 3 and to denounce what you have done. 4 However, I must also impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances. 5
The first stage of your sentence will involve setting a start point which reflects the nature and circumstances of your offending. I will then consider your personal circumstances to determine whether that starting point should be adjusted, up or down. I should say, and as you have heard this morning, that the Crown and your lawyer, Mr Hamlin, are largely agreed on what the starting point should be in this case. The focus of my consideration has therefore been your personal position, and what impact that has on the starting point.
The lead or most serious offence is clearly that of participation in an organised criminal group. There is no guideline decision for this offence.
The Crown emphasises that the Court is not restricted to examining your individual role in the syndicate. The Court of Appeal has said that each group member must have a degree of responsibility for the wider scale of the offending. 6 That is, of course, the very purpose of the charge of participation in an organised criminal group.
The Crown submits, and Mr Hamlin agrees, that given the sophistication of the syndicate and your extended involvement in it, a starting point in the vicinity of three years' imprisonment is warranted.
The Crown and Mr Hamlin have referred me to several other cases involving defendants with comparable roles in drug syndicates. 7 I have also considered the sentencing of a number of other members of the syndicate you were involved in. Having considered those matters, I agree that a starting point of three years is appropriate. In particular, I consider your offending to be most comparable to cases called Green, Parao and Richardson, though a little more serious, given the sheer scale of drugs supplied through the syndicate you were involved in. I also accept the Crown's submission that from your involvement, you must have been aware that you were involving yourself in serious, criminal offending, and helping others to sell controlled drugs into the New Zealand community.
The Crown submits that there should be an uplift of at least two months' imprisonment for the failure to provide your PIN to the Police, with no reduction for totality. It says this charge warrants a stern response from the Court. The Crown highlights that the entire syndicate used covert means such as Wickr to communicate and provide instructions.
Mr Hamlin submits an uplift of one to two months would be appropriate for this charge.
I agree with the Crown's submissions. While the maximum sentence for this offence is three months' imprisonment, the nature of this offending, and its links to a syndicate supplying significant amounts of controlled drugs, warrants a stern response. I impose an uplift of two months, to bring the starting point to three years, two months' imprisonment. I agree that no adjustment is required to reflect totality.
I turn now to matters personal to you, to see if they justify increasing or decreasing the starting point of three years and two months' imprisonment.
You have two previous convictions for obtaining by deception, dating back to 2011 and 2012. Both counsel agree that an uplift is...
To continue reading
Request your trial