Karetu v The King - [2024] NZHC 207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2023-412-69

[2024] NZHC 207

BETWEEN
BOYCEE LINTON JUNIOR KARETU

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 16 February 2024

Appearances:

B P Kilkelly for Appellant

M E A Brosnan for Respondent

Judgment:

19 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 February 2024 at 11.30 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

KARETU v R [2024] NZHC 207 [19 February 2024]

[1] Boycee Karetu was sentenced in the District Court at Dunedin to a prison term of two years and four months’ on charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply;1 a representative charge of offering to supply that drug;2 possession of LSD for supply,3 obstructing police,4 and possession of ammunition.5 He appeals that sentence, alleging that inadequate reductions were made for mitigating factors which resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence.6

Factual background

[2] Dunedin police became aware that Mr Karetu was dealing in methamphetamine, and had done so over a four-month period between July and October 2021. Evidence was collected that showed he was selling and offering to supply points, quarters and half grams of methamphetamine to a limited group of associates.

[3] On 2 December 2021, he was returning to his motor vehicle when he was stopped by police and arrested. $1,660 in $20 notes was found in his shoulder bag. In the backseat of the vehicle, 14 bundles of notes amounting to $16,000, all in $20 notes were located, as were utensils for the consumption of illicit drugs and digital weighing scales.

[4] Mr Karetu initially refused to be the subject of a search but was subsequently found to have two pill boxes and a package strapped to his body. The pill boxes contained 34.7 g of methamphetamine. A number of what are known as quarter packs in the drugs trade were also located on him. These have a market value of between
$2,800 to $3,500 each. Also found were 81 tabs of LSD valued at some $3,240. The total value of the methamphetamine found was $23,150.

[5] A subsequent search warrant executed on Mr Karetu’s address resulted in the location of eleven 12-gauge shotgun shells.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a) — maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(a) — maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(a) — maximum penalty life imprisonment.
4      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a) — maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a
$2,000 fine.
5      Arms Act 1983, s 22B(1) and (2) — maximum penalty a $10,000 fine.
6      R v Karetu [2023] NZDC 12540.

District Court sentencing

[6] After a careful examination of the circumstances of Mr Karetu’s offending and the application of relevant guideline sentencing decisions,7 Judge Phillips arrived at a starting point of three years and six months’ imprisonment. An uplift of six months was imposed for the LSD offending and…

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 Karetu v The King

Details

AGLC: Karetu v The King [2024] NZHC 207
Case: [2024] NZHC 207
Decision Date: 19 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Boycee Karetu appealed his sentence for various drug-related and firearms charges, arguing that the District Court had inadequately reduced his sentence for mitigating factors, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. The District Court had sentenced him to two years and four months' imprisonment, applying a credit of 20% for his guilty plea, 15% for his personal background and addiction issues, and 5% for his rehabilitative efforts. The Crown had also remitted his outstanding fines and substituted them with two months' imprisonment. The appeal grounds contested the sufficiency of these credits and the failure to provide a credit for the cash forfeiture.

The court found that the 20% credit for the guilty plea was appropriate, as Mr Karetu had not pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity. The court also ruled that the civil forfeiture of the cash found in his possession did not warrant a credit in sentencing, as it was unrelated to the Sentencing Act and was a confiscation of proceeds from crime. Regarding the rehabilitative efforts, the court found the 5% credit to be sufficient, despite mixed results, when compared to the exceptional progress of another appellant in a similar case. Finally, the five-month credit for the 12 months spent on electronically monitored bail was deemed to be within the discretionary range of the sentencing judge.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders