Obiaga v R - [2016] NZCA 270

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA390/2015
CA395/2015

[2016] NZCA 270

BETWEEN	DAVID OBIAGA AND NANCY LILLIAN LEEFE Appellants
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	9 May 2016
Court:	Harrison, Simon France and Woolford JJ
Counsel:	C J Tennet for D Obiaga R L Thomson for N Leefe K S Grau for Respondent
Judgment:	20 June 2016 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Mr Obiaga’s appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

B Ms Leefe’s appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Simon France J)

Introduction

These appeals arise out of a lengthy drug trial in which the appellants were two of a number of defendants charged in relation to importation of methamphetamine. There were three importations; the appellants’ involvement was limited to the first, which involved approximately 1.5 kg of methamphetamine.
Mr Obiaga was found guilty following a trial before Thomas J and a jury and later convicted on the charges of importing and then possessing the imported drugs for supply. He appeals his conviction of the basis of trial counsel error, and on the ground that the trial should have been abandoned because of a health emergency with a juror that occurred during deliberation. Mr Obiaga also appeals against a sentence of 15 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.
Ms Leefe was convicted of possessing the same drugs for supply. She was recruited by Mr Obiaga to assist him to collect the imported drugs from the courier. Like Mr Obiaga her unsuccessful defence was that she did not know that what was being brought into the country was drugs. Ms Leefe appeals on the basis that the prosecution impermissibly relied upon the out of court statement of a co‑defendant. She also relies upon the mistrial contention in relation to the juror’s ill‑health.

Facts

Detailed analysis of the facts is not needed at this stage. It is sufficient to cite passages from the sentencing remarks of Thomas J:[1]
[5]The first importation was on 13 November 2013, involving 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine brought into New Zealand by Mr Miranda. Ms Leefe, you were instructed by Mr Obiaga to go to the airport to make sure that Mr Miranda had successfully passed through Customs. Mr Obiaga gave you his flight details and a photograph. The flight was delayed so you left the airport shortly after. Mr Miranda was stopped by Customs. It was found he had over 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine secreted in his luggage. Mr Miranda agreed to work with the Police to undertake a controlled delivery.
[6]Mr Miranda was instructed by a Daniel Tucker in Nigeria to hand over the bags to a Mr “Alfred Coker” in Auckland. Through text messages and telephone calls between Mr Miranda and Mr Coker, who was Mr Iwu, arrangements were made for Mr Miranda to deliver the bags containing methamphetamine to Mr Coker on 18 or 19 November 2013.
[7]On 18 November 2013, Mr Iwu travelled to Auckland to collect the bags, Mr Miranda waited at…

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 Obiaga v R

Details

AGLC: Obiaga v R [2016] NZCA 270
Case: [2016] NZCA 270
Decision Date: 20 June 2016 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Obiaga and Nancy Lillian Leefe appealed their convictions and sentences arising out of a drug importation trial. Obiaga was convicted of importing and possessing methamphetamine for supply, while Leefe was convicted of possessing the same drugs for supply. Obiaga's appeal was against his conviction and sentence, while Leefe's appeal was solely against her conviction. The key issues were whether trial counsel for Obiaga was deficient, whether the trial should have been abandoned due to a juror's health emergency, whether the prosecution improperly used a co-defendant's statement against Leefe, and whether Obiaga's sentence was excessive. The Court found that Obiaga's trial counsel was not deficient, the trial should not have been abandoned, the prosecution did not improperly use the co-defendant's statement, and Obiaga's sentence was proportionate. Obiaga's appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed, and Leefe's appeal against conviction was also dismissed.

In summary, the Court upheld the convictions and sentences of both Obiaga and Leefe, finding no merit in their grounds of appeal relating to trial counsel, juror illness, improper use of a co-defendant's statement, or excessiveness of sentence. The appeals were dismissed in their entirety.

Orders