Hearing: 20 November 2014

Appearances:

AJ Pollett for Crown

DPH Jones QC for Henry Afakasi SJ Bonnar QC for Kainui Kaukasi BL Sellars for Filimaea Sililoto RM Mansfield for Vadi Tobia

MN Pecotic for Jordan Ioane
AM Ives for Folau Polaulu
SNB Wimsett for Sione Laungaue
MW Ryan for John Fetu
MS Gibson for Christopher Wise
G Kayes for Justin Abel

Sentence:

20 November 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v AFAKASI & ORS [2014] NZHC 2907 [20 November 2014]

Table of Contents Paragraph

Number

Introduction  [1] Background facts       [3] Approach to sentencing  [5] Henry Afakasi  [8] Starting point [8] Personal circumstances  [20] Minimum period of imprisonment  [27]
Kainui (Ben) Kaukasi  [30] Starting point  [30] Personal circumstances  [36] Minimum period of imprisonment  [39] Filimaea Sililoto  [40] Starting point           [40] Personal circumstances  [49] Minimum period of imprisonment  [56]
Jordan Ioane  [58] Starting point  [58] Personal circumstances  [63]

Vadi Tobia, Folau Polaulu and Sione Laungaue [68]

Starting points for participating in an organised criminal group

[69]

Vadi Tobia[73] Starting point [73] Personal circumstances [79]
Folau Polaulu [86] Starting point [86] Personal circumstances [89]

Sione Laungaue [94]

Starting point [94]

Table of Contents Paragraph

Number

Personal circumstances [95] John Fetu [98] Starting point [98] Personal circumstances [104]

Justin Abel [107] Starting point [107] Personal circumstances [112] Christopher Wise [116] Starting point [116]
The 2012 offending [121] The 2014 offending [122] Personal circumstances [130]

Final sentences [137]

Introduction

[1] Henry Afakasi, Kainui (Ben) Kaukasi, Filimaea Sililoto, Jordan Ioane, Vadi Tobia, Folau Polaulu, Sione Laungaue, John Fetu, also known as Timote Tupou – I will refer to you as Mr Fetu, Christopher Wise and Justin Lee Abel, you appear for sentence after being found guilty by a jury of various charges relating to your participation in a criminal group which was responsible for the manufacture of the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine; the production of the Class B controlled drug pseudoephedrine; and the distribution of those drugs.

[2] Mr Wise, you appear for sentence also on a raft of charges stemming from offences you committed while on bail awaiting this trial, the sentencing for which was referred to this Court by the District Court.

Background facts

[3] You are here today because, after a fire caused by an explosion at a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory in Glendene, West Auckland on
1 December 2011, the Police mounted an extensive operation of surveillance, interception and investigation into what proved to be a major drug-dealing enterprise which continued its activities for a period of 12 months up to November 2012. Seven of you, and Zebulin Davoren, participated in the enterprise for varying lengths of time, to varying degrees, and in varying roles; three of you were customers apprehended at the termination of the Police operation.

[4]…

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 R v Afakasi

Details

AGLC: R v Afakasi [2014] NZHC 2907
Case: [2014] NZHC 2907
Decision Date: 20 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Afakasi, the High Court of New Zealand sentenced multiple defendants involved in a large-scale methamphetamine and pseudoephedrine drug-dealing operation. The defendants were found guilty of various charges, including manufacturing, supplying, and possessing methamphetamine and pseudoephedrine, as well as participating in an organised criminal group. The court followed a structured approach to sentencing, taking into account the nature and extent of the defendants' offending, personal circumstances, and the principles and purposes of sentencing.

The court considered the defendants' roles in the offending and the total quantity of drugs involved in determining the starting points for their sentences. After assessing the totality of the offending and personal circumstances, the court adjusted the starting points accordingly. The final sentences varied depending on the individual defendants' roles, culpability, and personal circumstances. Some defendants were sentenced to imprisonment, while others received home detention sentences.

The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and denunciation in cases involving serious drug offending, and considered the need to promote a sense of responsibility and acknowledge the harm done to the community by the defendants' actions. The final sentences imposed on the defendants reflected the seriousness of their offending and the principles of sentencing.

Orders