R v Dollman [2016] NZDC 11399 (22 June 2016)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback District Court of New Zealand

Hearing:	22 June 2016
Appearances:	M-J Thomas for the Crown S Vidal for the Defendant C K Dollman J Westgate for the Defendant K A Dollman S Claver for the Defendant Ladbrook
_Judgment:	_{22 June 2016}

• On 24 July 2013 possession of a Class C controlled drug, cannabis, for the purposes of supply to a person of or over the age of 18 years.

• On 24 July 2013 possession of a Class C controlled drug BZP for the purposes of sale.

[2] Christian Dollman is further charged with three charges of importation of pentedrone, a Class C controlled drug. He was jointly with Ryan Kitto and Kerryn McDonald.

• Between 12 June 2012 and 13 July 2013 he offered to supply a Class C controlled drug, namely BZP, to a person over the age of 18 years; a representative count.

• Between 12 September 2012 and 18 March 2013, he manufactured a Class B controlled drug, cannabis oil.

• Between 12 February 2012 and 9 September 2013, supplied a Class B controlled drug, namely cannabis oil, to various persons; again a representative charge.

• Between 3 March 2013 and 30 October 2013 he sold a Class C controlled drug, namely cannabis, to Karl Dollman; a representative charge.

• On 22 July 2013 had possession of a Class C controlled drug, namely cannabis, for the purposes of supply to persons of or over the age of

• On 31 October 2013 had possession of a Class C controlled drug, namely cannabis, for the purposes of supply to persons of or over the age of

[5] In relation to Karl Dollman, the manufacture of Class B cannabis oil carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and the supplying of the Class B controlled drugs, a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

[6] In respect of all the other drug offending that he faces, and the drug offending that Christian Dollman faces, they carry a maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment.

[7] In respect of Mr Ladbrook, the possession for supply of the cannabis carries a maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment; the cultivation charges and the theft charges carry a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

[8] Apart from the theft charge that Mr Ladbrook faces, all of the offences arise from an operation mounted by the police, called “Operation Crimson.” That operation was conducted between December 2012 and November 2013 in relation to the group known as “The Road Knights.”

[9] I have considered all the material, information and submissions filed, including the pre-sentence report and the summaries of facts for each defendant. I have also read the references supplied but I am conscious of the direction that personal circumstances carry little weight in sentences for drug dealing offences. I give what weight I can to them as is appropriate.

[10] The defendant Christian Dollman was at the time of the operation the president of the Invercargill Road Knights group. He is the son of the defendant Karl Dollman. Mr Ladbrook is an associate of the Road Knights group.

[11] The operation which was conducted involved intercepting incoming and outgoing calls, text messages and private conversations between the three defendants and others including Jeremy Proctor, Kerryn McDonald, Roxanne Skolnic, Ryan Kitto, Jody Templeton, Craig Barber and other associates. Also charged in relation to the operation were Rebecca Elliot (the daughter of Karl Dollman and sister of Christian) and Yvonne Smith (the sister of Karl Dollman and the aunt of Christian Dollman).

[12] Karl Dollman’s charges represent 131 controlled drug dealing offences over the period of time that he is charged. Those charges include one of manufacture of the Class B controlled drug, 12 instances of dealing in the Class B controlled drug

[13] For Christian Dollman, the eight charges of the Class C controlled drugs represent 66 controlled drug-dealing offences. The other three charges relate to the importation of the Class C controlled drug, pentedrone.

[14] In respect of Dirk Ladbrook, his dealing offences are based on material gathered when search warrants were executed at the address where he was cultivating the cannabis and is based on the fact that he received substantial sums of money from Karl Dollman for ongoing cannabis supply. He also had a sophisticated indoor growing operation which, on 31 October 2013, revealed 86 plants growing in three rooms in a house purposely altered to allow cultivation and included the electricity meter being tampered with to hide the amount of power that was being used, the walls being lined to reflect heat and light and high-density discharge light shields, extractors to extract the smell of cannabis and 46 ounces of dried cannabis were located at the time that he was apprehended. The estimated yield for the period between 3 March 2013 and 31 October 2013 from that operation was estimated to be between $165,600 and $276,000. The potential annual yield was between $256,800

and $428,000. The cannabis operation was ongoing and would have continued but for the intervention of the police.

[15] In respect of Karl Dollman, his offending in respect of the cannabis and BZP arose from a search warrant which was executed on 23 July 2013 when police located material at the address of Rebecca Elliot. Following that apprehension Karl Dollman then took cannabis and BZP in a 20 litre paint pail and went to the Otatara area and buried it to ensure that it was not seized by the police. That was then discussed with Christian Dollman. This conversation was intercepted by police and the drugs were located by the police when they found the 20 litre bucket buried in the ground. The drugs located from that instance had an estimated value of approximately $27,500.

24 July 2013, cash was found hidden in various parts of the house, including a lump sum of $35,700 in $5000 lots. There were also other cash amounts with various names ascribed to them, including that of Mr Ladbrook. There were also notebooks outlining the amounts that were payable or were destined for various people. That included financial records totalling $12,480 which had been paid to Mr Ladbrook.

[17] There were various discussions between Christian Dollman and Karl Dollman during the period which indicated they had substantial amounts of cannabis; at one stage the amount was quantified by them as being of “two pounds” of cannabis.

[18] In respect of Christian Dollman, the intercepted conversations were also with other persons and included conversations about the buried drugs at Otatara and various conversations being recorded at Christian Dollman’s address between him and the co-accused who were the subject of the operation. On 5 August 2012 the police executed a search warrant at Christian Dollman’s house and at his place of work. Located in his work locker were small, zip seal bags, a tick list, a notebook and also in his vehicle another notebook.

[19] In respect of the importation charges to which Christian Dollman was charged with Ryan Kitto and Kerryn McDonald, the facts of that are that between December 2012 and June 2013 the police surveillance, in respect of the Road Knights, included an electronic interception phase in June 2013. On

256 grams of white powder which was subsequently analysed and found to be pentedrone (which is a Class C analogue controlled drug). This package had originated from China and was addressed to a male in Invercargill.

[20] On the following day two further packages from the same company were intercepted by New Zealand Customs. The first package contained 264 grams of the Class C controlled drug pentedrone; it was addressed to a co-offender of Mr Kitto. The second package intercepted that day contained 260 grams of pentedrone and was addressed to another male person in Invercargill. The total amount of the drug intercepted on those two days was 726 grams of pentedrone.

[21] On 1 August 2013 at 9.00 pm the police intercepted text conversations between Christian Dollman, Kerryn McDonald and Kitto. On that evening at 10.18 pm on that evening the police intercepted a conversation between Christian Dollman and his partner, during which Mr Dollman said that he had to get on with business and told her that he had to go to Countdown to buy a phone so he could ring someone and then throw the phone away. The police made enquiries at Countdown, in Invercargill, and established that on that same evening, Mr McDonald went to Countdown and purchased a cellphone.

[22] There was then following, on 2 August, an intercepted conversation between Mr Kitto and Mr McDonald where Mr McDonald was asked where the phone was and was told that it was hidden. Later that same evening the police intercepted a conversation between Mr McDonald and Mr Dollman, at Dollman’s Invercargill address. They both discussed the awaiting of a parcel to arrive via international mail and the clearing of New Zealand Customs. Mr Dollman was informed that Mr McDonald had spoken to the person at New Zealand Post regarding that and she

emailed him back saying “it is the luck of the draw” getting the parcel through Customs. Mr Dollman asked Mr McDonald if they could change the address that they were sending it to and whether or not that could happen. (That was to do with the manner in which they were paying for the goods through Western Union.) When the search warrant was executed at Mr Dollman’s place of work, two of the Western Union dockets for the transfer of the money from New Zealand to China were found in the material that was located that day. (Mr Kitto and Mr McDonald have been sentenced. I will come back to that in a moment.)

[24] The pre-sentence reports which I have read in respect of firstly, Mr Karl Dollman, is that he is a 78 years of age. In that report he minimised his involvement in the operation although his letter today seems to tell me that he accepts now that he was involved more than what the Probation report would have said. He says in that he only supplied small amount of drugs during the course of the operation and that the money that was located was his from savings despite the fact that there were intercepted communications regarding the money being discussed. Mr Karl Dollman has previous convictions from drug matters. He is at low risk of re-offending because of the level of his previous convictions.

[25] In respect of Mr Christian Dollman, there are two reports which I have read. In those reports it says that his lifestyle is a factor that has led to the offending. It also says that he minimised his role in the importation charges. It points out that he has been in employment for 14 years. It says that he accepts that his decision to become involved in this offending was foolish and that he is not a drug user.

[26] The second report assesses him as a moderate risk of re-offending and a moderate risk of harm to others given the nature of the offences. In that report he maintains that he did not receive any significant monetary gains from this offending and again minimised his role and said that he was only helping people out.

[27] Mr Dirk Ladbrook’s report says that he is 41 years of age; that he has liberal view regarding cannabis; he has been using it since he was the age of 15; he cultivated the cannabis for his own use; and he was not prepared, at that stage, to pay reparation to the Alliance Freezing Works (I now note that he has done so). He says the cannabis was grown to support his gambling habit as well as for his own use. I consider that that might be the case but in respect of the quantity that was being cultivated, he obviously had what is considered an elaborate set-up.

[28] The Crown have filed extensive submissions in respect of the sentencing of the three defendants. They point out that in serious drug offending of this nature there is a need to deter and denounce the actions and also to hold accountable for the harm that drug dealing and cultivation causes and also for the damage that is caused to the community at large.

[29] In respect of Messrs Karl and Mr Christian Dollman, the aggravating features in respect of these two defendants, the Crown say, are the scale of the offending; that these two defendants were the principals in this drug dealing; and that Ladbrook’s role was that he was the grower of the cannabis for the distribution that the Dollmans were involved in. Today Ms Thomas has also said that it is necessary to consider that this was a long-term operation and that the network available for distribution was substantial.

[30] The Crown say that the number of instances of the drug dealing sales is aggravating: 131 for Karl Dollman, and 66 for Christian Dollman; that the quantity of the Class C dealing is also a relevant factor particularly bearing in mind the sums that were discussed in the interceptions and the amount located during the course of the searches including the $35,700. The other major aggravating factor was that this was a sophisticated drug dealing operation, the Crown says, using an organisation to distribute, codes to ensure secrecy, tick lists indicating there were substantial monies due and obtained as a result, and the fact that there were large volumes (that is

evidenced because of the scales and the number of snap lock bags which were located when the warrants were executed). The Crown also submit that the organised criminal group that was used to distribute the material is an aggravating factor.

[31] They say that the starting point for Messrs Christian and Mr Karl Dollman is the middle band of Terewi1 where the starting point is between two to four years’

_{imprisonment. I do not think that is contested by counsel for any of
the defendants.}

[32] The Crown advocate a starting at the upper end of band 2 because of the clear commercial operation with a high level of sophistication, the frequent sales and the significant quantities involved. Also they say that Messrs Christian and Karl Dollman were the ‘king pins’ in respect of the operation and that this offending by them was more serious than that of other offenders who were charged and sentenced and that a starting point in respect of both of those defendants of four

[33] In respect of Mr Dirk Ladbrook the Crown submit the cultivation was a sophisticated operation, it was netting a substantial sum of money and the suggestion that it was for personal use can have little foundation based on the evidence and the actual operation that was involved. They submit that it should be at the upper end of band 2 on the basis of the sophistication; the fact there were three rooms used to grow the cannabis; the extensive planning, equipment and alterations to the house; the tampering with the electricity supply; and the other factors that went into the growing of the cannabis. They also say that the potential yield, not only of the amount located on the day, but also of the potential yield of between

$256,800 and $428,000 a year is an aggravating factor As to a starting point for Mr Ladbrook the Crown suggest that it should be one of three years’ and six months’ imprisonment.

[34] In respect of his theft charge, they submit there should be an uplift for that. It is theft from an employer because he was employed at Alliance; a three month uplift, in the totality situation, would be appropriate for that.

[35] In respect of the importation charges that Mr Christian Dollman faces, and which he was jointly charged with Messrs McDonald and Kitto, the Crown submit - again on the basis of Terewi, and also on the sentences that were imposed for McDonald and Kitto, where starting points of three years four months was adopted for Mr McDonald and three years for Kitto - that a starting point for Mr Dollman in respect of this offence should be one of three years and four months’ imprisonment for his role in the importation because of the high level of organisation and planning involved and because of the fact that his culpability is akin to that of McDonald and, the Crown suggest, could be regarded as more serious, given his role in the Road Knights at the time and in the organisational network available for distribution of that drug had it got into the country.

[37] In respect of Mr Karl Dollman, therefore, the Crown suggest a starting point of four years, and with the guilty plea discount, an end sentence would be one of three years and seven months.

[38] For Mr Christian Dollman, they submit a starting point of four years for the cannabis and BZP charges, and on the importation charges a starting point of three years four months is appropriate. They say that the totality principle must come into effect. They submit that if I stand back and look at it, that a starting point of six years’ imprisonment would be appropriate; with the guilty plea, that would give an end sentence at five years and one month.

[39] In respect of Mr Ladbrook, with a starting point of three years six months, an uplift of three months for the theft charge, would give an end starting point of three years nine months. With the 10 percent guilty plea discount, an end sentence of three years four months’ imprisonment would be appropriate.

[40] For Mr Ladbrook, Mr Claver submits, that there are only two aggravating factors; they being his previous convictions and the volume of product found during the course of the search. In mitigation, Mr Claver submits I should take into account that Mr Ladbrook has no previous convictions for any drug offending; that the period of time since his last appearances before the Court; his desire and motivation to address the offending; his remorse; and also a credit for a guilty plea should be applied.

_{[41] Mr Claver accepts that this falls into band 2 of Terewi
and in relation to}

would be sufficient. He says there should clearly be a slight uplift for the theft and also for previous convictions, and that an end starting point would be three years

[42] For Mr Karl Dollman, Mr Westgate says that the offending was not necessarily sophisticated; that tick lists, codes, snap lock bags, scales and other items are necessarily associated with drug dealing and hence do not make this a sophisticated operation of behalf of Mr Karl Dollman. He points out Mr Karl Dollman’s age and has handed me a letter today from Mr Karl Dollman which expresses his remorse for the predicament that he finds himself in. He agrees that the offending is in band 2 of Terewi and says that a starting point should be three years six months. He suggests a 15 percent discount or credit for a guilty plea because of the fact that the matter has not gone to trial and the obvious saving to the

[43] For Mr Christian Dollman, Ms Vidal has filed submissions and submits that a starting point of three years is appropriate in respect of the cannabis and BZP offending. This is on the basis that it is not as serious as other charges where a four year starting point was adopted. She refers me to a number of cases where there was a similar operation in the district some time previous where there was intercepted communications and the starting point was a lot higher in respect of those offences.

[44] Ms Vidal has also filed references for Mr Christian Dollman and says that I should take those into account, and the fact that he has made significant changes in his lifestyle; those indicate that you are not a person who is likely to come back before the Court.

[45] In respect of the importation charge, she suggests an uplift of only three months in regards to his culpability when I am looking at the matter in the round. She says your culpability, Mr Christian Dollman, was lower than that of the co- defendants (McDonald and Kitto) and that you were not a ringleader for that offending. She says the starting point of six years in respect of the totality basis for the offending, only happens in cases where are large scale serious Class C drug offending or commercial Class A drug offending. She says that you are no longer a member of the Road Knights group and that you were going to get some monies from this dealing but they were only to be used for a holiday and for some personal medical treatment.

[46] As to a credit for a guilty plea, the Ms Vidal submits says that you were going to plead guilty to the charges on 23 June 2014 but there was also Class A and B offences which were still before the Court and you would not plead until they were dealt with. When those charges were withdrawn, you pleaded guilty. She suggests that I should give you a higher discount of 20 percent for your guilty plea; and also the fact that you have been on a bail for two and a half years, and that I should give you a further discount of five percent for those bail conditions. The Crown do not necessarily agree with that.

[47] With respect to Mr Dirk Ladbrook, in my assessment, this was a sophisticated growing operation which was obviously a successful one based on the material and on the amounts of money due and the tick lists that were recovered. Secondly, there was modification to the house, including fans to extract the smell from cannabis and lighting being set up for the successful cultivation of the cannabis. There were

carbon filters to extract the odour of the cannabis. This was a systematic growing operation which would ensure continual supply of the drug. The power had been altered to hide the fact that more power than normal was being used and that was to hide the fact that there was a growing operation in place. There was an abundant yield; on the estimate from the police, the yield on an annual basis was between

$256,000 and $428,000 a year, which means that the medium amount that would be able to be produced on an annual basis was about $350,000.

[48] This matter falls right at the top end of band 2 of Terewi. The starting point has to be one of three years three months for the cultivation and for the possession for supply. There is an uplift for the theft (I take account now that you have repaid in full the reparation); an uplift of two months for the theft. That would give me a sentence of three years five months’ imprisonment. You are entitled to a discount for your guilty plea; it came at a late stage; a 10 percent discount is applicable.

[49] Accordingly, your sentence, Mr Ladbrook, taking into account all of those matters that I have raised, will be one of three years’ imprisonment.

[50] Mr Karl Dollman, you face charges of possession for supply of Class B and manufacturing of Class B drugs. They are different matter to the Terewi cultivation matters Class C. In my assessment, you were one of the leaders of this operation and you were prepared to embark upon dealing in Class B, not being content with the Class C matters that you were with your son on. You also went about hiding your drug dealing and also you were prepared to go to substantial lengths to do so, including the hiding of materials by the burying a bucket in a local reserve after the police had been at an address you were available to go to. There was also the use of codes to hide your offending. Your involvement in hiding that BZP shows that you were at the upper level of organisation in this activity.

[51] Taking into account the fact that there is Class B drugs involved, your offending warrants a starting point of four years’ imprisonment. As to the guilty pleas, I consider a 10 percent discount is relevant because it came at a late stage.

The evidence against you was overwhelming and your chances of defending the charges appear, on the strength of the evidence that I have seen, to be remote. While you have saved the Crown the necessity of a trial, conviction seemed inevitable. The guilty plea has come at a late stage.

[52] Accordingly, from a four year starting point, you get a 10 percent discount. The end sentence will be three years seven months’ imprisonment.

[53] Mr Christian Dollman, on the facts that are disclosed, you were central to the operation, both for the cannabis/BZP operation and also for the importation operation. You were responsible for advising Ladbrook about drying techniques for the cannabis; you were responsible for organising the ongoing supply of cannabis to his father; and you were also using the address of Monowai Street to store drugs; you were part of the wholesale supply to small time dealers; you had tick lists in respect of the sale of the cannabis that he was selling.

[54] In respect of the importation charge, to say that you were not as culpable as McDonald is just not correct. Firstly, you worked together with McDonald at Alliance; you were organising the purchase of the phone that could be easily disposed of; you were also found in possession of two of three dockets in respect of the importation of the Class C drug having been responsible for the transfer of the money.

[55] In respect of the BZP and cannabis charges on which you were jointly charged with your father, a starting point of three years nine months is appropriate. In respect of the importation charges, a starting point similar to that of Mr Kitto is appropriate, namely, three years.

[56] Totality means that that is an end sentence of six years nine months. On an overall assessment, however, that is too high a starting point on that basis. While each offending is discrete, it has occurred at exactly the same time, so on a totality basis a starting point of five years six months would be appropriate.

[57] As to discounts, you are entitled to a discount for your guilty plea. If you were going to plead guilty to the cannabis/BZP charges, you should have pleaded at the stage you indicated it. I do not consider a 20 percent discount is appropriate for the pleas which came so late in the day before the trial was to be heard. However, you did plead guilty to the other charges at an earlier time, and I consider an overall discount of 15 percent is appropriate.

[58] As to the bail conditions, there is nothing onerous about your bail conditions and even when you pleaded guilty, you were granted bail pending sentence, and you only surrendered to custody when it seemed to suit you to do so. I do not consider there should be any discount for your bail conditions.

[59] Accordingly from a starting point of five years six months, with a 15 percent discount, the end sentence will be one of four years eight months’ imprisonment.

[60] I make an order for destruction of all drugs and drugs-related paraphernalia seized as a result of the convictions entered against each of you.

District Court of New Zealand

R v Dollman [2016] NZDC 11399 (22 June 2016)