Natua v The Queen - [2018] NZHC 3278

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-404-000345

[2018] NZHC 3278

BETWEEN
LUKE NATUA

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 11 December 2018

Counsel:

J Verry for Appellant HG Max for Respondent

Judgment:

12 December 2018

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 12 December 2018 at 4 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: J Verry, Auckland.
Crown Law, Wellington.

NATUA v R [2018] NZHC 3278 [12 December 2018]

The appeal

[1] Judge J Jelas sentenced Mr Luke Natua to a term of two years and two and a half months’ imprisonment.1 Mr Natua supplied methamphetamine, offered to supply that drug, unlawfully possessed a firearm and ammunition, received stolen property, and assaulted Police. Mr Natua appeals. He contends the sentence is manifestly excessive. Attention is invited to the starting point and totality principle.

Background

[2] On 9 August 2017, Mr Natua’s associates robbed two victims of their Ford Mondeo. The offenders wielded a sawn-off .22 rifle. Mr Natua received the Mondeo the next day. And the rifle. On 21 August 2017, Mr Natua was stopped by the Police. The rifle was in his car—loaded. Over the preceding three weeks, Mr Natua had dealt methamphetamine at street level. The precise amount of drug remains unknown, but was likely less than five grams. Mr Natua appeared in Court on 22 August 2017 (the day after his arrest). He was remanded in custody. Mr Natua refused to leave the dock. He twice kicked a male Police officer, including to the groin. Mr Natua also attempted to headbutt the officer.

[3] Judge Jelas adopted a starting point of two years’ imprisonment for the methamphetamine offending. The Judge increased the starting point by 15 months for the firearms offending and receipt of stolen property. Discounts for personal circumstances and guilty pleas left a sentence of two years’ imprisonment, to which the Judge added two and a half months for the in-court assault on the Police officer.

The global starting point

[4] Mrs Verry takes no issue with the starting point of two years for the drugs offending, but contends the global starting point of 39 months’ imprisonment was too high. Mrs Verry submits if the firearms and receiving offending had occurred without any other offending, a starting point of 15 months would be manifestly excessive.2

1 Police v Natua [2018] NZDC 22361.
2 Mrs Verry placed little weight on this point at the hearing.

[5] Case law addresses this submission. Byles v R involved similar offending: a sawn-off. 22 rifle was found in a car during a search.3 The Court of Appeal upheld a starting point of two years’ imprisonment. In Dewes v Police, the High Court upheld a starting point of two and a half years’ imprisonment for possession of a sawn-off shotgun.4 As here and in Byles, the gun was found in a car.

[6] Two other High Court decisions are relevant. In Head v Police,…

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 Natua v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Natua v The Queen [2018] NZHC 3278
Case: [2018] NZHC 3278
Decision Date: 12 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered an appeal against sentence by Luke Natua. Mr Natua was sentenced to a term of two years and two and a half months’ imprisonment for supplying methamphetamine, offering to supply that drug, unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition, receiving stolen property, and assaulting Police. Mr Natua contended the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court needed to determine whether the starting point and the totality principle warranted a reduction in sentence. The Court examined the starting point for the methamphetamine offence, the additional time for the firearms and receiving offences, and the additional time for the assault on the Police officer. The Court found the starting point for the methamphetamine offence was appropriate. It also found that the additional time for the firearms and receiving offences was justified due to the seriousness of the offences and the fact that the stolen car was taken at gunpoint. Finally, the Court found that the additional time for the assault on the Police officer was appropriate, given the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the assault was committed in court. The Court found that the totality principle did not require an amelioration of the global starting point of 43 months’ imprisonment, as it was not disproportionately severe. The Court also found that the Judge did not uplift the sentence, even though she might have, and that parole consequences are generally irrelevant to sentencing.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders