R V MARK ANTHONY GRIFFITHS HC HAM CRI 2007-019-10310 [2009] NZHC 699 (11 June 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
HAMILTON REGISTRY
                                                                CRI 2007-019-10310



                                   THE QUEEN



                                          v



                         MARK ANTHONY
GRIFFITHS



Hearing:      11 June 2009

Counsel:      M N Sturm for Crown
              G Boot for Accused

Sentence:     11 June
2009


                      SENTENCE OF RONALD YOUNG J



[1]    Mr Griffiths, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy
to supply
methamphetamine, and conspiracy to supply cannabis between September and
December 2007.


[2]    Briefly the facts were
that in 2007 the Police began an investigation
regarding the drug activities of the Mongrel Mob in the Waikato.        During the
investigation stage the Police intercepted private phone calls and conversations
during this time. The intercepts were said to reveal
significant drug dealing. The
Police allege twenty-six people were involved in this drug dealing in a hierarchacil
structure through
the Mongrel Mob.




R V MARK ANTHONY GRIFFITHS HC HAM CRI 2007-019-10310 11 June 2009
[3]    Second tier offenders, a number of
whom have been sentenced and I will
mention them in a moment, were responsible for sourcing and distributing the drugs
to others
and at the third tier were those who actually supplied the public.


[4]    As to cannabis supply this was said to be approximately
ten ounces per week
with a profit of $5,000 to $7,000 a week. As to the methamphetamine dealing the
only clear occasion the Police
can identify involves what seems to be the purchase of
an ounce or 28 grams of methamphetamine for $16,000 where you and others were
involved. That methamphetamine was clearly intended for sale. You were not the
only one involved but you were involved in organising
it and making sure ultimately
it happened. Clearly substantial profits were anticipated.


[5]    Overall, your involvement was immediately
below the main organiser of the
drug dealing but it seemed to me above the second tier dealers. You describe
yourself now as the
president of the Waikato chapter of the gang.              You were
involved in recruiting members to the drug dealing group, overseeing
the drug
dealing undertaken by that group and in ensuring the profits were returned to the
head of the organisation. You were involved
in securing the cannabis for sale,
arranging cultivation and overseeing its distribution and you were involved in the
methamphetamine
dealing in the way that I have described.


[6]    The number of co-offenders at the second tier have been already sentenced
and
I mention them to illustrate sentencing levels:


       a)      Mr Paul who was said to be a second tier offender pleaded guilty
to
               selling cannabis and possession of cannabis for supply. He had a
               starting sentence of five years'
imprisonment, some uplift and a
               discount for an early guilty plea and a final sentence of three years
           
   and nine months.


       b)      Mr Singh pleaded guilty to conspiracy to sell cannabis. He was said
               to be a second
tier offender sourcing and distributing drugs. From a
               starting point of five years and three months with a further
uplift for
               past offending less an early guilty plea he was sentenced to three
               years and ten months'
imprisonment.


       c)      Mr Karaitiana conspiracy to supply, he was also said to be a second
               tier offender.
A starting point of four years' imprisonment with an
               eighteen month uplift for the context and personal circumstances
               resulting after an early guilty plea of three years and eight months.


       d)      Mr Ferguson conspiring to supply
cannabis, also a second tier
               offender. He was on bail at the time of the offending but with no
               previous
convictions a starting point of five years was reduced to
               three years and four months for his early guilty plea.


[7]    As far as the pre-sentence
report was concerned the main feature is your
previous conviction attachment which shows over many years serious offending and
serious
sentences of imprisonment.


[8]    In 2003, for example, you were sentenced on charges involving permitting
premises to be used
for drug purposes, possession of supply Class B drugs,
cultivating Class C, manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of precursors
and
equipment. You were sentenced to 6½ years' imprisonment. In 1997, possession of
cannabis for supply and possession of LSD for
supply, you were sentenced to three
years' imprisonment. In 1993, a further 5½ years' imprisonment for serious violent
offending.
On my calculation in the last seventeen years you have received fifteen
years sentences of imprisonment. When you committed this
offending you were on
parole for similar drug offending.


[9]    As I have said, you are said to be high up in the Waikato Mongrel
Mob
structure. The Crown say that you were number two in this organisation or in the
drug organisation of the Mongrel Mob taking
orders from another but giving orders
to the second and third rank members in the drug supply chain. While the Crown
accept that
they cannot accurately identify the volume of methamphetamine supply,
they say even given this is a conspiracy charge, a starting
point in the middle of band
two of R v Fatu  [2006] 2 NZLR 72 is appropriate.
[10]   As to the cannabis dealing they say that you were at a higher level and,
therefore, more responsible than
those at the second tier and a starting point of six to
6½ years' imprisonment is appropriate. They say with appropriate uplifts
a starting
sentence before discount for guilty pleas of nine years' imprisonment is appropriate.
They say a minimum period of imprisonment
should also be imposed.


[11]   I have ready your counsel's submissions and I take them into account and I
also take into account
the oral submissions I have had today.               As to the
methamphetamine charge while your counsel accepts that that event
is in band two
of Fatu he says that taking account of your modest involvement and the fact that
there is no other dealing and that
this is a conspiracy charge a starting point near the
bottom end of band two of Fatu is appropriate.


[12]   As to the cannabis
dealing your counsel submits that you were in a similar
position to other second tier offenders and certainly no worse than them.
He accepts
that of course it was an aggravating feature that you were on parole at the time of
your offending but says that effectively
you have already been punished for that
having been recalled to Prison and having thereby lost any period of remand in
custody counting
towards your sentence and as a result having to serve the full
sentence of the previously imposed sentence for drug dealing. He says,
therefore, a
starting sentence of 7½ years is appropriate, less your guilty plea resulting in a final
sentence in the region of 5
years' imprisonment.


[13]   Mr Griffiths this was serious well organised drug offending in the context of
a gang with tight control
within the organisation. You were near the top of that
organisation and involved in the control, I consider, of the second and third
tier
offenders who themselves were engaged in actual supply. Your sentence must, in
part, reflect the important controlling aspect
of your offending but I accept perhaps
not the uplift that could be justified had you been involved right from the beginning
of the
offending. The cannabis dealing involved thousands of dollars of profit per
week in cannabis. The others involved have starting sentences
in the region of five
years to five years, three months.          To reflect your greater authority and
responsibility, I think a
proper starting sentence by itself would be six years'
imprisonment for the cannabis offending.
[14]   As to the methamphetamine
I must sentence you on the basis of what is
known and what is known is only that the one event which I have heard. That
involves
essentially a conspiracy to supply the 28 grams of methamphetamine,
which puts you at the low/moderate level of band two of Fatu.
I think in the
circumstances an appropriate starting sentence for that would be 4½ years'
imprisonment.


[15]   But I must stand
back and assess overall what I think is an appropriate
sentence for this offending. I think the proper overall starting sentence
is one of
8½ years' imprisonment which reflects the facts of your involvement. There are, of
course, a number of personal aggravating
features. You were on parole at the time
of the offending and you have a terrible background of drug offending and have had
lengthy
drug sentences.


[16]   However, I do take into account the fact that as a result of all of this you have
served an extra two years'
imprisonment, effectively, as a result of being recalled to
prison. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be double counting to
take into
account the fact that your offending was while on parole. And I also intend to make
a slight adjustment to the uplift that
I would have imposed for your previous
offending. In those circumstances, without the unusual feature of your parole, an
uplift in
the region of twelve to eighteen months would have been justified for both
offending on parole and your past offending but I reduce
this to six months to reflect
your recall and its consequences.


[17]   Before plea, your starting sentence is therefore nine years' imprisonment.
While you did not plea
guilty at the earliest possible opportunity you did plea guilty
relatively early. In those circumstances I think an approximately
25% deduction for
that guilty plea is appropriate. From the nine years starting, therefore, I think the
proper sentence is one of
6½ years' imprisonment. I am satisfied this is case for a
minimum non-parole period. I am satisfied that all of the statutory circumstances
are
justified especially given your constant drug dealing offending. I set that at slightly
below the maximum of two thirds at four
years.


[18]   The particular sentences, therefore, I impose are as follows:
       a)      firstly, on the cannabis charge which
overall is the most serious, you
               are sentenced to the 6½ years' imprisonment with a minimum
               non-parole
period of four years;


       b)      on the methamphetamine, you are sentenced to four years'
               imprisonment concurrent.
I also order forfeiture of the sum of $1,620.


[19]   On counts three and five you are discharged under s 347 of the
Crimes Act
1961.




                                                     ___________________________
                                     
                             Ronald Young J

Solicitors:
M N Sturm, Almao Douch, PO Box 19173, Hamilton, email: [e-mail]
G Boot, Gavin Boot Law, PO Box 19043, Hamilton