Haeta v The King - [2024] NZHC 2094

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2024-454-15

[2024] NZHC 2094

BETWEEN
TE AWHETU HAETA

Appellant

AND

R

Respondent

Hearing: 30 July 2024

Appearances:

J Younger for Appellant N Brown for Respondent

Judgment:

30 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] On 14 May 2024, the appellant was sentenced to seven months’ home detention after pleading guilty to the following charges:1

(a)one charge of possession of a class C drug (cannabis) for supply;2

(b)one charge of unlawful possession of two firearms;3 and

(c)one charge of unlawful possession of ammunition.4

[2]The appellant now appeals his sentence on the grounds that:

1      R v Haeta [2024] NZDC 10707.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2) — maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment.
3      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b) — maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 45(1)(b) — maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment.

HAETA v R [2024] NZHC 2094 [30 July 2024]

(a)the starting point of three year’s imprisonment was too high, with the appropriate starting point being two years’ imprisonment;

(b)the firearms charges were incorrectly assessed to be the lead charges, when the drug offence should have been the lead charge;

(c)the 15 per cent discount for the appellant’s personal factors was wholly inadequate, and instead a discount of 20 per cent should have been applied;

(d)a discount in the range of five per cent should have been applied for the fact the appellant lacked previous convictions; and

(e)further discounts of five per cent for his remorse and steps at rehabilitation and another five per cent for his rehabilitation prospects should have been applied.

Offending

[3] In August 2023, police executed a search warrant at the address occupied by the appellant, his wife and his wife’s younger brother.

[4] Whilst executing the search warrant, police found two bags of cannabis that amounted to 487 grams. $2,000 in cash was also found.

[5]In the master bedroom of the property, police found a loaded cut-down

.22 magnum Rossi semi-automatic rifle under the bed, alongside 10 rounds of
.22 ammunition and 21 shotgun shells. They also located a 3D-printed semi-automatic pistol in the cupboard of the master bedroom, and a further 32 rounds of
.22 ammunition on the appellant’s person.

[6] The appellant is said to have told police that he supplied cannabis to members of the Nomads gang for free, and admitted to possession of the firearms and ammunition and asserting that he possessed them for his own safety from other gang members.

District Court decision

[7] In his sentencing notes, Judge Krebs noted that the appellant had one previous conviction in 2017 for a minor assault where he was directed to come up for sentence if called upon, and consequently decided to treat him as a first-time offender.

[8] The Judge stated he had been told that the appellant had taken positive steps to rehabilitate himself whilst on bail, and that his mother spoke…

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 Haeta v The King

Details

AGLC: Haeta v The King [2024] NZHC 2094
Case: [2024] NZHC 2094
Decision Date: 30 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Te Awhetu Haeta appeals his sentence on the grounds that the District Court erred in the starting point, the identification of lead charges, and the discount applied for personal factors, good character, remorse, and rehabilitation. The High Court of New Zealand must determine whether the District Court erred in its sentencing decision. The Court finds that the District Court did not err in its determination of the starting point, the discount for background factors, the failure to apply a discount for good character, the failure to apply a discount for remorse, or the failure to apply a discount for rehabilitation. The Court finds the starting point of three years was appropriate, given the nature of the offending and the involvement of gang activity. The Court found the District Court did not err in applying a 15 per cent discount for personal factors, given the appellant's upbringing and the general association between the appellant's background and his offending. The Court found the District Court did not err in failing to apply a good character discount, given the appellant's family violence conviction and his ongoing association with the Nomads gang. The Court found the District Court did not err in failing to apply a discount for remorse, given the appellant's lack of remorse and his justification of possessing prohibited modified weapons for an unlawful purpose. The Court found that the appellant's engagement with a counsellor and his prospects for rehabilitation were already factored into the 15 per cent discount for background factors. The Court found the appeal to be without merit and dismissed the appeal.

Orders