Legal Research
Cases
Manuka v The Queen

Manuka v The Queen

Case [2020] NZHC 1043 19 May 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-404

[2020] NZHC 1043

BETWEEN
KINGI BEAU MANUKA

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 18 May 2020

Appearances:

G Duff for the Appellant

M Davie for the Respondent

Judgment:

19 May 2020

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 May 2020 at 3.00 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Crown Law, Wellington
Q Duff, Auckland

MANUKA v R [2020] NZHC 1043 [19 May 2020]

[1] The appellant, Kingi Manuka, appeals against a sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment imposed following his guilty pleas to charges for dealing in methamphetamine, cannabis and cannabis oil. The charges were:

(a)offering to supply a class A drug (methamphetamine);1

(b)possession of a class A drug (methamphetamine);2

(c)possession of utensils for consumption of methamphetamine;3

(d)offering to supply a class B drug (cannabis oil);4

(e)offering to supply a class C drug (cannabis);5

(f)possession of a class C drug (cannabis);6 and

(g)possession of utensils for consumption of cannabis.7

Factual background

[2] Mr Manuka offered methamphetamine, cannabis and cannabis oil by way of text messages in the period from 1 January 2017 to 1 February 2017:

(a)He offered methamphetamine for sale on no less than 84 occasions. The methamphetamine was offered in various sizes ranging from
0.1 grams to 1.0 grams with a retail value of between $50 and $1000. In the course of the 84 offers, Mr Manuka offered no less than nine grams of methamphetamine;

1      Misuse of Drugs Acts 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and 7(2)(a) (maximum penalty: life imprisonment).
2      Misuse of Drugs Acts 1975, ss 7(1)(a) and (2) (maximum penalty: six months’ imprisonment, a
$1000 fine, or both).
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 13(1)(a) and (3) (maximum penalty: one year’s imprisonment, a
$500 fine or both).
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) (maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment).
5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(e) (maximum penalty: eight years’ imprisonment).
6      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 7(1)(a) and (2) (maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment, a
$500 fine or both).
7      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 13(1)(a) and (3) (maximum penalty: one year’s imprisonment, a
$500 fine or both).

(b)Mr Manuka offered cannabis for sale on no less than 28 occasions. The cannabis was offered for sale in one gram amounts retailing for $20 each. The 28 offers involved no less than 57 grams (2.1 ounces) of cannabis; and

(c)Mr Manuka offered cannabis oil for sale on no less than four occasions. It was offered for sale in one capsule amounts which retailed for $40 each. The four offers involved cannabis oil valued at a total of $160.

[3] On 4 April 2017, the police executed a search warrant at Mr Manuka’s home address. In the kitchen they located a snaplock bag containing 0.98 grams of cannabis head, a small bag containing 0.04 grams of methamphetamine and a bong used for the consumption of cannabis. In Mr…

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 Manuka v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Manuka v The Queen [2020] NZHC 1043
Case: [2020] NZHC 1043
Decision Date: 19 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Kingi Manuka appeals against a sentence of three years and three months' imprisonment following his guilty pleas to multiple drug-related charges. The appellant argued that the starting point for sentencing was too high, and that he should have received a greater discount for his guilty plea. The appeal hinged on the recent Court of Appeal decision in Zhang v R, which provided new guidelines for determining the starting point for drug-related offences. Manuka's counsel argued that the starting point should be reduced to two years' imprisonment, and that a greater discount should have been applied for the guilty plea. The Crown argued that the starting point was appropriate, and that the reduction in the guilty plea discount was justified due to Manuka's failure to appear for sentencing.

The Court found that the starting point of three years and four months' imprisonment was too high and reduced it to two years and four months' imprisonment. The Court also found that the reduction in the guilty plea discount was appropriate, given Manuka's failure to appear for sentencing. The Court ultimately substituted the original sentence with a sentence of two years and four months' imprisonment. The appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was quashed.

Orders