New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Supply and possession for supply

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2023

R v GRIFFITHS [2023] NZHC 2371

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2371
Court

High Court

Offender was a leading figure in a large commercial drug distribution network involving international importation; applying Zhang banding and role assessment yielded a methamphetamine starting point of 13.5 years, a two year uplift for GBL resulted in 15.5 years, a 35% total mitigation discount (15% for plea and 20% for personal factors) reduced the global sentence to an effective 10 years' imprisonment; a five year minimum period under s86 was necessary for deterrence, denunciation and community protection given scale, leadership role and links abroad.
10 Feb 2023

R v MACFARLANE [2023] NZHC 172

Citation

[2023] NZHC 172
Court

High Court

The Court found the manufacture of 730g methamphetamine was the lead offending and, given the defendant's leading role, sophisticated use of dark web/Bitcoin and organised infrastructure, set a high starting point (effectively global starting point ~14 years 8 months after modest uplift for criminal history). Mitigation for addiction and background was limited due to demonstrated deliberate agency; a modest total mitigation of 35% was applied (25% guilty plea, 5% addiction/early life, 5% remorse/rehabilitation), producing an end sentence of 9 years 6 months. A minimum period of imprisonment e…
5 Aug 2022

R v SIMPSON [2022] NZHC 1902

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1902
Court

High Court

Applying Zhang band 5 to at least 8 kg manufactured and a leading role, the judge fixed a Whakatane starting point of 14 years, uplifted 2 years for manufacturing capacity/equipment and 2 years for multiple firearms (18 years), added a 2 year uplift for separate Manukau offending (total 20 years), then allowed mitigation (guilty pleas 4.5 years, mental health/addiction 2.5 years, remorse 1 year) totaling 8 years reduction, resulting in an overall sentence of 12 years imprisonment with a minimum period of 5 years before parole eligibility (just over 40%) because mental health/addiction reduced…
4 Feb 2020

R v SCOTT [2020] NZHC 68

Citation

[2020] NZHC 68
Court

High Court

Court assessed individual roles against quantity and Zhang bands and adopted starting points reflecting role and participation in organised criminal group and money laundering: Habulin assessed at the highest level (starting point life, reduced by discounts to 27.5 years after plea); Scott significant multi-role operative (starting point 28 years, reduced to 24 years after plea); Cavallo senior facilitator (starting point 27 years, reduced to 23 years after plea); Northway lesser operational assistant (starting point 19 years, reduced to 14 years 9 months after plea). Modest deductions grante…
7 Nov 2019

R v FANGUPO [2019] NZHC 2896

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2896
Court

High Court

The judge found the principal offenders (Kulu and Fangupo) were co-equals and leaders who imported approximately 20 kilograms each (including caught and uncaught packages and attempted imports), adopted starting points of 20 years (Kulu) and 19 years (Fangupo), applied 10% mitigation for good character/rehabilitation factors resulting in final custodial terms of 18 years (Kulu) and 17 years (Fangupo) and imposed 50% minimum periods for parole eligibility; Finau was found to have a lesser, inept role, adopted an 8-year starting point plus one year uplift for a dangerous firearm/ ammunition and…
16 May 2018

CHAN v R [2018] NZCA 148

Citation

[2018] NZCA 148
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the sentencing Judge erred by insufficiently differentiating the appellant's materially lesser role when fixing the starting point and uplift; the appropriate starting point for totality was reduced to 20 years with a 20% overall discount for personal mitigation (youth, vulnerability and hardship) less nine months' credit, resulting in a substituted sentence of 15 years and three months' imprisonment; the Judge failed to state reasons under s 86(2) for imposing a minimum period and an MPI was not necessary in this case, so the MPI was quashed.

New Zealand Case Law

R v GRIFFITHS [2023] NZHC 2371

R v MACFARLANE [2023] NZHC 172

R v SIMPSON [2022] NZHC 1902

R v SCOTT [2020] NZHC 68

R v FANGUPO [2019] NZHC 2896

CHAN v R [2018] NZCA 148