Parata v R

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellants Lawrence Kylie Konehu Parata and Tai Anthony Rewita have brought forward separate appeals against their sentences, consolidated for hearing. Both appellants were convicted in the High Court and sentenced for drug-related offenses. The appeals focus on the appropriateness of the sentences given by the sentencing judges, particularly the credit for pre-sentence custody and the quantum of the sentences. The Court of Appeal, comprising Wild, Simon France, and Duffy JJ, heard the appeals on 13 February 2017, delivering its judgment on 7 March 2017.

The central legal issues in these appeals revolve around the calculation of the starting point for the sentences and the credit given for the appellants' time spent on restrictive electronically monitored bail (EM bail). In the case of Rewita, the Court examined whether the uplift for the conspiracy charge was excessive. The court assessed the quantum of methamphetamine supplied and the circumstances surrounding the conspiracy charge to determine if the six-month uplift was appropriate. Additionally, the court scrutinized the amount of credit given for personal factors, considering the principle of deterrence in drug-related offenses. For Parata, the issue was whether the four-month credit for ten months of restrictive EM bail was adequate, with the appellant arguing for a more substantial discount.

The Court of Appeal found that the uplift for Rewita's conspiracy charge was not excessive, as it correctly reflected the potential increase in the total amount of methamphetamine that would have been supplied had the conspiracy been successful. Regarding the credit for personal factors, the Court held that the six-month credit was not manifestly inadequate and did not contribute to a manifestly excessive sentence. In the case of Parata, the Court rejected the argument that the credit for EM bail should be revisited, holding that the current approach, which recognizes the restrictive nature of EM bail but does not equate it to pre-trial remand in custody, was appropriate. The Court found that the four-month credit for ten months of EM bail was not inadequate, although a higher figure might not be incorrect. Consequently, the appeals against sentence were dismissed.