Hauraki v The Queen - [2020] NZHC 405

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2019-488-33

[2020] NZHC 405

BETWEEN
RAINA TIPUNA HAURAKI

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 26 February 2020

Appearances:

H Leabourn for the Appellant C Taylor for the Respondent

Judgment:

5 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 March 2020 at 3.30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Whangarei Counsel: H Leabourn, Auckland

HAURAKI v R [2020] NZHC 405 [5 March 2020]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Raina Tipuna Hauraki, pleaded guilty to six counts of offering to supply methamphetamine1 and one count of possession of methamphetamine for supply.2 She also pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. On the drugs charges she was sentenced to two years, six months’ imprisonment. On the charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice, she was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. The sentences were to be served cumulatively, so the final sentence was two years, nine months’ imprisonment.

[2] Ms Hauraki now appeals that sentence on the ground it was manifestly excessive.

Factual background

[3] On 6 September 2018, at about 10.30am, the police executed a search warrant at 19A Weaver Street, Whangarei. Ms Hauraki was at the address sitting in the driver’s seat of her car, which was parked on the front lawn. The police detained Ms Hauraki for the purposes of executing the search warrant. A search of the vehicle and a personal search were undertaken. Three snap-lock bags containing methamphetamine were found in Ms Hauraki’s underwear. The three bags contained a total of 1.94g, divided into 1.19g, 0.55g and 0.2g. The search of the vehicle located three sets of digital scales, many unused snap-lock bags, a scooping tool used to divide methamphetamine, a glass pipe which can be used to smoke methamphetamine and $1,850.00 in cash. Ms Hauraki was holding a mobile phone in each hand. A third mobile phone without a SIM card was found in the driver’s door. Ms Hauraki was remanded in custody.

[4] On 8 September 2018, Ms Hauraki phoned her mother from prison. In that conversation, Ms Hauraki said to her mother: “I am going up on possession, possession for supply of meth … they got two grams and my phone. So are you able to cancel my phone numbers?” Her mother subsequently asked: “… how much is it looking like?” Ms Hauraki answered “Well it depends, it depends on these phones. Whatever, they’ve got f… all to go off, if without the phones … Mum, can you cancel

1 R v Hauraki [2019] NZDC 20138 at [17].
2 At [1].

those numbers ASAP please?” Her mother said “Yeah I’ll try.” The following day Ms Hauraki contacted her mother by phone again and supplied her with a number for one of the phones and a PIN.

[5] On 8 November 2018, the police executed a production order on Ms Hauraki’s mobile phone provider. Her efforts…

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 Hauraki v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hauraki v The Queen [2020] NZHC 405
Case: [2020] NZHC 405
Decision Date: 5 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Raina Tipuna Hauraki appealed her sentence of two years, nine months’ imprisonment, which was imposed for drug supply and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The appellant argued the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the calculation of the quantity of methamphetamine in determining the sentencing band was flawed. Hauraki also challenged the sentence discounts. The Crown submitted the sentence was appropriate and within the range of comparable sentences. The court held the appeal against sentence failed. The sentencing Judge was correct to find the offending fell within band 2 of Fatu, and the starting point of three years’ imprisonment was correct. The methodology for calculating the quantity of methamphetamine was appropriate, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The discounts allowed were not inadequate, and the uplifts for previous offending and perverting the course of justice were not excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders