Niuula v The King - [2024] NZHC 2027

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2024-443-19

[2024] NZHC 2027

BETWEEN
FREDERICK SIMEONA NIUULA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 16 July 2024

Appearances:

K R Pascoe for Appellant K B Bell for Respondent

Judgment:

24 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF BOLDT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 July 2024 at 3:00 pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors:
Ms K R Pascoe, Nicholsons Lawyers, New Plymouth Crown Law, Wellington

NIUULA v R [2024] NZHC 2027 [24 July 2024]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Frederick Niuula, pleaded guilty to a representative charge of possessing methamphetamine for the purpose of supply.1 On 29 May 2024, Judge A S Greig sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment.2 Mr Niuula appeals against that sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

Background

The offending

[2] Mr Niuula acted as a courier in a drug dealing operation. On three occasions in March and April 2023 he drove consignments of methamphetamine from Auckland to New Plymouth, where he met a Mr John Bevin. Unbeknownst to Mr Niuula, Mr Bevin was under Police surveillance throughout.

[3] Between them, the three shipments comprised approximately 15 ounces, or 425 grams of methamphetamine. The summary of facts estimated the street value of the drugs Mr Niuula transported at $147,000.

[4] Mr Niuula’s visits to Mr Bevin were brief, lasting only a few minutes each time. It appears he drove back to Auckland immediately after dropping the drugs off.

[5] Mr Niuula was paid for transporting the drugs, though his financial gain was not substantial. The Crown could not prove he received more than $1,500; Police found a bundle of cash in that amount when they stopped Mr Niuula on his way back to Auckland after the third delivery. Ms Pascoe, for Mr Niuula, submitted the evidence is consistent with Mr Niuula receiving payment only on the third occasion, and that
$1,500 may have been his reward for all three shipments. While that appears unlikely, we simply do not know what reward, if any, Mr Niuula received for the first two trips.

[6] It is common ground that Mr Niuula played only a small part in a large dealing operation. Mr Bevin had been under surveillance since October 2022, and during that

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2). Methamphetamine is a Class A controlled drug; possession of methamphetamine for supply carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
2 R v Niuula [2024] NZDC 12180.

time more than 100 vehicles visited his address. Mr Bevin was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for his role in the operation.3

The appellant

[7] Mr Niuula is 40 years old and is married with three children, who in March this year were 16, 12 and 8 years old. At the time he was sentenced, Mr Niuula was in gainful employment.

[8] Mr Niuula is a patched member of the King Cobra gang. He says he is no longer active in…

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 Niuula v The King

Details

AGLC: Niuula v The King [2024] NZHC 2027
Case: [2024] NZHC 2027
Decision Date: 24 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Frederick Simeona Niuula appealed against his four years and six months’ imprisonment sentence for possessing methamphetamine for the purpose of supply. The Crown accepted the sentence was within the correct range, but the appellant argued the starting point of six years was manifestly excessive. The appeal hinged on whether the sentencing judge had erred in characterising the appellant’s role as significant rather than lesser. The judge had adopted a starting point at the lowest end of band three, which the sentencing guidelines suggest is appropriate for an offender dealing in 425 grams of methamphetamine. The appellant’s role was critical in transporting the drugs, and though his financial gain was limited, he had made a calculated decision to become involved for financial gain. The appeal was dismissed as the sentence fell within the appropriate range.

Boldt J concluded that Mr Niuula’s role, though lesser, was still significant enough to merit a sentence within band three. The court found the sentence to be a textbook application of the established sentencing guidelines, and no error was found in the judge’s approach or application of the law. The appellant’s sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment was upheld.

Orders