R v Atta - [2016] NZHC 2478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-085-001882 [2016] NZHC 2478

THE QUEEN

v

MOHAMED SOLIMAN HUSSAIN ATTA

Counsel:
S W P Woods for Crown

D A Ewen for Defendant

Sentence:

18 October 2016

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Atta, this morning I am sentencing you in relation to seven representative charges of importing methamphetamine1 and one representative charge of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine.2

[2] You pleaded guilty to those charges after I gave you a sentence indication on

15 September 2016.3 That was the second sentence indication you received.4

[3] This morning I shall:

(1) explain your offending;

(2) set out the starting point for your sentence;

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a). Maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
2      Section 6(2A)(a). Maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      R v Atta [2016] NZHC 2184.
4      R v Atta HC Wellington CRI-2015-085-1882, 2 November 2015 per Simon France J.

R v ATTA [2016] NZHC 2478 [18 October 2016]

(3) explain the adjustments to the starting point; (4) set out your end sentence; and
(5) explain the structure of your sentence.

Your offending

[4] An investigation codenamed “Operation Gandolf” targeted the activities of an organised criminal group involved in the importation and distribution of methamphetamine throughout New Zealand. You were at the centre of the group in New Zealand.

[5] Throughout the investigation, you were serving a full custodial sentence at Rimutaka prison. You facilitated, using your contacts in Thailand, the importation of drugs. You would communicate with a buyer wanting to obtain drugs and you would arrange for the importation to occur. You were paid a fee, usually $5,000 for each importation. The quantities involved for the importation charges related to multiple packages of 100 grams or 200 grams of methamphetamine. The total quantity of methamphetamine imported was 1,758 grams.

[6] The conspiracy to supply methamphetamine charge relates to you proposing to give your co-defendant, Mr Belmont, seven grams of methamphetamine at the price of $400 per gram. You advised he could on sell that methamphetamine for
$800 per gram.

Personal circumstances

[7] You are 40 years old and you have previously appeared before the court. Your drug-related offending includes one conviction for importing 197 grams of
cocaine in 2010. You were sentenced to 10 years and six months’ imprisonment.5

5 R v Atta DC Auckland CRI-2010-004-018720, 1 December 2011.

Starting point

[8] The importation of methamphetamine charges are the lead charges for the purposes of setting a starting point. The tariff judgment for methamphetamine importation offending is R v Fatu.6 It is agreed your offending falls within band 4, importing very large commercial quantities. Band four of R v Fatu attracts a sentence of between 12 years to life imprisonment.

[9] Your offending has the following aggravating features:

(1)Planning and premeditation:7 premeditation is inherent in this type of offending and is particularly evident given the lengthy period and number of offences involved.

(2)Quantity, value and scale

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 Atta

Details

AGLC: R v Atta [2016] NZHC 2478
Case: [2016] NZHC 2478
Decision Date: 18 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Atta, Mohamed Soliman Hussain Atta was convicted of seven counts of importing methamphetamine and one count of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine. Atta was the central figure in an organised crime group involved in the importation and distribution of methamphetamine across New Zealand, orchestrating these activities while serving a sentence at Rimutaka prison. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for these serious and persistent drug-related offences, taking into account various factors including the nature of the crimes, the offender's role, and the impact of his previous convictions.

The primary legal issues the court addressed were determining the starting point for the sentence, adjusting this starting point based on aggravating and mitigating factors, and deciding whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment. The court considered the extensive nature of Atta's criminal activities, his significant role in the drug importation scheme, and his previous conviction for importing cocaine, all of which were aggravating factors. The court also considered the mitigating factor of Atta's guilty pleas, which resulted in a 25% discount on his sentence.

The court reasoned that the appropriate starting point for the sentence was 16 years' imprisonment, reflecting the severity of the crimes and the offender's significant role. After applying the discount for guilty pleas, the adjusted sentence was 13 years and 2 months' imprisonment. The court then imposed a concurrent sentence to ensure proportionality and to reflect the principle of totality. Finally, the court decided to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of 50%, equating to six years and seven months, to ensure the sentence effectively served the purposes of accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and community protection.

The final orders of the court were that Atta was to serve 13 years and 2 months' imprisonment for each count of importing methamphetamine, with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years and seven months. For the conspiracy charge, he was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, all sentences to run concurrently with his existing sentence.

Orders