R v Apaapa - [2016] NZHC 208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-019-004813 [2016] NZHC 208

THE QUEEN

v

VYELLA APAAPA

Hearing: 18 February 2016

Appearances:

J N Foster for Crown
R Barnsdale for Prisoner

Judgment:

18 February 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors, Hamilton
R Barnsdale, Hamilton

R v APAAPA [2016] NZHC 208 [18 February 2016]

[1] Ms Apaapa you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(a) Supplying methamphetamine. This is an offence pursuant to s 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and the maximum penalty is one of life imprisonment;

(b)Offering to supply methamphetamine. This is also an offence pursuant to s 6(1)(c) and again, the maximum penalty is one of life imprisonment;

(c) Supplying lysergide (“LSD”). Again this is an offence pursuant to s

6(1)(c) and the maximum sentence is one of life imprisonment;

(d) Offering to supply LSD. This is also an offence pursuant to s 6(1)(c)

and the maximum sentence is the same;

(e) Selling cannabis. This is an offence pursuant to s 6(1)(e) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the maximum sentence is one of eight years’ imprisonment;

(f) Offering to sell cannabis. This is also an offence pursuant to s 6(1)(e)

and again the maximum sentence is one of eight years’ imprisonment.

[2] The charges were laid against you and a number of others in April 2014. You entered guilty pleas on 7 December 2015.

[3] On 24 November 2014 Heath J gave you a sentence indication. He indicated that a starting point of eight years and three months’ imprisonment would be appropriate for your offending in total. At the time you were charged with supplying methamphetamine (x 4), offering to supply methamphetamine (a representative charge), possession of methamphetamine for supply, supplying LSD, offering to supply LSD, conspiracy to supply a precursor substance, conspiracy to supply equipment, selling cannabis and offering to sell cannabis.

[4] In the event, you did not accept that sentence indication. I note that since it was given some of the charges against you have been withdrawn.

[5] You entered your guilty pleas on 7 December 2015. By this point all of your various co-offenders had entered guilty pleas and your trial was scheduled to commence in April 2016.

Relevant Facts

[6] The summary of facts which you accepted at the time you entered your guilty pleas records that, in November 2013, the Waikato Police Organised Crime Squad commenced an investigation into the supply of drugs in Hamilton. The investigation was code named Operation Fremont. It focussed initially on the supply of methamphetamine by patched members and associates of the Waikato chapter of the Mongrel Mob gang.

[7] A covert investigation was carried out. It involved the interception of a large number of communications between various people. As a result, the police were able to identify a core group of individuals who were involved in the supply of methamphetamine and other illicit drugs.

[8] As a result of their investigations, the…

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 Apaapa

Details

AGLC: R v Apaapa [2016] NZHC 208
Case: [2016] NZHC 208
Decision Date: 18 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Apaapa, the defendant, Vyella Apaapa, was sentenced for multiple drug-related charges. The charges included supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine, supplying and offering to supply lysergide (LSD), and selling and offering to sell cannabis. The court considered the nature and scale of Apaapa's offending, which involved a significant degree of premeditation and organisation, as well as her association with the Mongrel Mob gang. The court also took into account the impact of her offending on the community and the fact that she exposed a young baby and a 15-year-old girl to drug dealing at her home. The starting point for Apaapa's methamphetamine offending was determined to be seven years and six months' imprisonment, with a modest uplift for her other drug-related offending. After considering aggravating and mitigating factors personal to Apaapa, including her extensive criminal history and guilty plea, the court sentenced her to a total of eight years' imprisonment, to be served concurrently.

The final orders of the court were that Apaapa be sentenced to seven years and five months' imprisonment for supplying methamphetamine, seven years and five months' imprisonment for offering to supply methamphetamine, two years' imprisonment for supplying LSD, two years' imprisonment for offering to supply LSD, 21 months' imprisonment for selling cannabis, and 21 months' imprisonment for offering to sell cannabis. All sentences were to be served concurrently. The court expressed hope that Apaapa would take advantage of rehabilitation programs offered in prison to turn her life around and avoid reoffending.

Orders