Hura v The King - [2023] NZCA 7

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA417/2022
[2023] NZCA 7

BETWEEN	JAYDEAN RIIPIA HURA Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

CA418/2022
BETWEEN	MARK JAMES LANG Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	23 November 2022
Court:	Goddard, Woolford and Fitzgerald JJ
Counsel:	H G de Groot for Appellants M B Smith for Respondent
Judgment:	10 February 2023 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe applications for extension of time to appeal are granted.
BThe appeals are allowed.
CThe minimum period of imprisonment imposed on each appellant is set aside.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Goddard J)

In 2016 Mr Hura and Mr Lang pleaded guilty and were sentenced on charges arising out of their involvement as “cooks” in a large-scale methamphetamine manufacturing operation.
Mr Hura pleaded guilty to five charges of manufacturing methamphetamine and one charge of participating in an organised criminal group. On 22 April 2016 he was sentenced by Lang J to 16 years and 8 months’ imprisonment on each of the manufacturing charges.[1] The Judge imposed a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 50 per cent on those charges: Mr Hura was ordered to serve a minimum term of imprisonment of 8 years and 4 months.[2]
[1]R v Hura [2016] NZHC 777 (Hura sentencing notes). Mr Hura was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment on the charge of participating in an organised criminal group. The sentences were to be served concurrently
[2]Hura sentencing notes, above at [31].
Mr Lang pleaded guilty to two charges of manufacturing methamphetamine and one charge of possessing equipment with intent that it be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. On 16 August 2016 he was sentenced by Moore J to 14 years and 4 months’ imprisonment on the manufacturing charges.[3] A 50 per cent MPI was imposed on the two manufacturing charges: he was ordered to serve a minimum term of 7 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.
[3]R v Lang [2016] NZHC 1899 (Lang sentencing notes). On the charge of possessing equipment for manufacture of methamphetamine, Mr Lang was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment. The sentences were to be served concurrently.
Neither Mr Hura nor Mr Lang appealed against their sentences at the time they were imposed. Each now wishes to challenge one aspect of their sentence: the imposition of a 50 per cent MPI. In order to do so, they seek an extension of time to appeal, some six years after their respective sentencings.
The appellants submit that at the time they were sentenced, it was standard practice for courts to impose a 50 per cent MPI in cases of serious drug offending. However since then, a Full Bench of this Court has confirmed that imposing an MPI as a matter of routine is not consistent with s 86 of the Sentencing Act 2002.[4] Rather, a reasoned analysis is required both in relation to the imposition of an MPI and its length. The appellants say…

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 Hura v The King

Details

AGLC: Hura v The King [2023] NZCA 7
Case: [2023] NZCA 7
Decision Date: 10 February 2023 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In 2016 Mr Hura and Mr Lang pleaded guilty to charges relating to their involvement as cooks in a large-scale methamphetamine manufacturing operation and were sentenced. They have applied for an extension of time to appeal against the imposition of a 50 per cent minimum period of imprisonment (MPI). The appeals raise two issues: whether the appellants’ lengthy delay in bringing their appeals ought to be condoned and, if so, whether the imposition of a 50 per cent MPI was justified in each case.

The Court concluded that the appellants’ lengthy delay in pursuing an appeal had to some extent been explained. The delay was not a bar to extending the time for appealing against the MPIs that were imposed, and to allowing the appeals and setting aside the MPIs. In each case, the Court concluded that an MPI longer than the standard period was not required. The imposition of a 50 per cent MPI, although orthodox at the time the sentences were imposed, was not in the Court’s view consistent with the requirements of the Sentencing Act. The applications for extension of time to appeal were granted, the appeals were allowed, and the minimum period of imprisonment imposed on each appellant was set aside.

Orders