Karaitiana v The King - [2023] NZHC 122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2022-463-141

[2023] NZHC 122

BETWEEN
INGA KARAITIANA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 1 February 2023

Appearances:

A Hill for the Appellant

Z Smart for the Respondent

Judgment:

8 February 2023

JUDGMENT OF HARVEY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 February 2023 at 3.30 pm.

…………………………..
(Deputy) Registrar

Solicitors:
Andrew Hill, Rotorua
Gordon Pilditch, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

KARAITIANA v R [2023] NZHC 122 [8 February 2023]

Introduction

[1] Inga Karaitiana was sentenced to two years, three months imprisonment by Judge E P Paul at the Rotorua District Court on 21 October 2022,1 on six charges of possessing methamphetamine for supply;2 and two charges of supplying methamphetamine.3 He now appeals that sentence to this Court.

[2]The two issues for determination on this appeal are:

(a)Is a discount for cultural factors and addiction appropriate?

(b)Is a discount for time spent on EM bail appropriate?

Facts

[3] Mr Karaitiana and his associate Ms Collier supplied methamphetamine in the Rotorua area between July and October 2021.

[4] On 25 July 2021 Mr Karaitiana confirmed with Ms Bowen that $200 was acceptable for half a gram of methamphetamine. The next day Mr Karaitiana instructed Ms Collier how to conduct sales for five grams of methamphetamine. On 27 July 2021 Mr Karaitiana and Ms Bowen arranged to meet, communicating about how far they were from the meeting location and when they arrived. Mr Karaitiana informed Ms Bowen that as he had supplied two grams of methamphetamine, she owed $800.

[5] On 28 July 2021 Ms Bowen messaged Mr Karaitiana complaining that she had only received one gram of methamphetamine which had already been sold. She asked Mr Karaitiana for two grams of methamphetamine as she would be back and forth all night if only given one gram amounts. Following that, on 29 July 2021 Mr Karaitiana asked Ms Collier how much methamphetamine she had left. She replied that she only had five and a half grams and that the six grams she was given was underweight.

1      R v Karaitiana [2022] NZDC 20932; and Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 244.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2).
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2).

Mr Karaitiana stated that he weighed the six grams himself and reminded Ms Collier “no dunking”, suggesting that she took half a gram for personal use.

[6] On 9 August 2021 Mr Karaitiana’s associates, Ms Collier and Ms Woodmass, discussed purchasing methamphetamine and informing Mr Karaitiana that there was “$5,400 here”. Mr Karaitiana replied to Ms Woodmass from Ms Collier’s phone that
$7,000 should have been delivered to Ms Woodmass and that he will make up for it.

[7] On 9 October 2021 Mr Karaitiana received a message from his son that he had seven grams of methamphetamine available for him. Several days later, on 13 October 2021, Mr Karaitiana’s son messaged…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Karaitiana v The King and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NZHC 122
Decision Date: 8 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Inga Karaitiana appeals against his sentence imposed by the Rotorua District Court, seeking a reduction in the severity of his punishment. Karaitiana was sentenced to two years and three months' imprisonment for possessing and supplying methamphetamine. The central issues before the court were whether a discount for cultural factors and addiction, and for time spent on electronic monitoring (EM) bail, was appropriate. The Crown argued that the sentence was correctly imposed and that any discount for personal factors and addiction was not excessive. Karaitiana, on the other hand, contended that the court should have awarded a larger discount for his cultural background and addiction, and that he should receive credit for the time he spent on EM bail.

The court acknowledged that Karaitiana's cultural background and addiction issues were significant mitigating factors, but found that the sentence already accounted for these to an acceptable extent. The court held that a 15% discount was appropriate, which resulted in a reduced sentence of two years and one month imprisonment. The court found that no additional credit should be given for time spent on EM bail, as the duration was short and the restrictive conditions were not fully applicable during the entire period. The court emphasised that the sentence should adequately reflect the seriousness of the commercial methamphetamine dealing offense.

The appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was quashed, replaced with a sentence of two years and one month imprisonment.

Orders