Police v Ratahi - [2013] NZHC 1657

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

CRI-2013-016-000360 [2013] NZHC 1657

BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND POLICE Informant

ANDANDRE NATHAN RATAHI Defendant

Hearing: 2 July 2013

Appearances: K Laurenson for Informant
A M Sceats for Defendant

Sentence: 2 July 2013

SENTENCE OF KEANE J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Napier
A M Sceats, Gisborne

POLICE v RATAHI [2013] NZHC 1657 [2 July 2013]

[1] Andre Ratahi, you appear for sentence for five offences: possessing cannabis twice, first on 13 January 2013 and then for supply on 9 February 2013; and then three driving offences on 13 January 2013: driving with an excess breath alcohol level, a third or later offence, driving dangerously and failing to stop when required by the police.

[2] On 3 May 2013 jurisdiction was declined in the District Court and you are thus for conviction and sentence in this Court.

Offences

[3] On 13 January 2013, at about 2 am, when you were driving on Peel Street, Gisborne, you sped away, when the police attempted to stop you by turning on the red and blue flashing lights on their patrol car. You drove through a stop sign on Peel Street and a give way sign on Grey Street. You collided with a parked car in Kahutia Street but that did not deflect you.

[4] Finally, you were stopped by other officers on Cobden Street and by then the car you were driving had become inoperable. You underwent a breath test. Your level was 477 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. A bag of cannabis was found in your car, which you accepted was yours.

[5] On 9 February 2013, shortly after 9 am, the police came to your home in Lytton Road, Gisborne in response to a report that you and your partner were involved in what might have been a violent dispute. The police smelt cannabis and exercised their power to search your property without warrant.

[6] In the washing machine they found a bong and a plastic shopping bag inside which were four snaplock bags containing cannabis head. Three contained 18.4 -
18.7 grams, the fourth 2.6 grams, in all 58.2 grams. The cannabis had just been bagged, on the face of it for the purpose of sale. At $300 an ounce it was worth $621. If sold as tinnies it was worth $1,160.

[7] In a satchel in the lounge the police found a glass pipe, commonly used to smoke methamphetamine, and $2,996.50 cash, mostly in $20 notes. Also a

cellphone. Messages in your sent box were to organise drug deliveries or to demand that drug debts be paid. In the kitchen there was a set of scales capable of weighing up to 500 grams, and a box of plastic snaplock bags.

[8] You admitted that the satchel was yours. You said that you and your partner had saved the cash from wages, that the cellphone was to contact your boss and that the cannabis was for personal use.

Pre-sentence report

[9] Your…

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 Police v Ratahi

Details

AGLC: Police v Ratahi [2013] NZHC 1657
Case: [2013] NZHC 1657
Decision Date: 2 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Police v Ratahi, the defendant, Andre Nathan Ratahi, appeared before the High Court of New Zealand in Gisborne for sentencing on five offences. The offences included two instances of cannabis possession, one for personal use on 13 January 2013 and another for supply on 9 February 2013, and three driving-related offences on 13 January 2013: driving with an excess breath alcohol level, driving dangerously, and failing to stop when required by the police. The District Court had declined jurisdiction on 3 May 2013, leading to the case being heard in the High Court for conviction and sentencing.

The central legal issue in this case was the determination of an appropriate sentence for Ratahi's multiple offences, particularly focusing on the possession of cannabis for supply, which was the most serious offence. The court had to weigh the nature and circumstances of the offences against Ratahi's background, his history of persistent offending, and the mitigating factors such as his recent abstinence from drugs and alcohol, his stable employment, and the support he would receive from his family during a community sentence.

The court reasoned that while the possession of cannabis for supply warranted a significant custodial sentence, the mitigating factors and the potential for a more effective rehabilitation in the community warranted a sentence of home detention. The court accepted the Crown's proposal for a starting point of two years for the possession for supply offence, with additional uplifts for the other offences and previous convictions, leading to a proposed effective sentence of two years and eight months. However, considering Ratahi's early plea and his demonstrated ability to remain drug-free and employed, the court opted for a sentence of 12 months of home detention, allowing him to continue working and receive support from his family.

In summary, the court convicted Ratahi of the possession for supply offence and the excess breath alcohol offence, sentencing him to 12 months of home detention for each. The other offences were either discharged or resulted in fines and disqualifications. The court imposed special conditions for the home detention, including mandatory participation in drug and alcohol counselling, psychological assessment, and a Tekanga Maori program. The case also highlighted the issue of the confiscation of cash found during the search, which could not be forfeited due to the nature of the offence and would need to be addressed through separate proceedings under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.

Orders