Legal Research
Cases
R v Fangupo

R v Fangupo

Case [2019] NZHC 2896 7 November 2019

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Importing Methamphetamine

Conspiracy

Attempt

Unlawful Possession of Firearms

Mens Rea & Intention

Mitigating Features

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-004-000675

[2019] NZHC 2896

THE QUEEN

v

TEVITA MATANGI FANGUPO TEVITA SITANILEI KULU TONI RAJENDRA FINAU HALENE JAMES IKUIA

Hearing: 7 November 2019

Counsel:

FMT Culliney and JV Barry for Crown

RM Mansfield and H Smith for Defendant Fangupo SJ Bonnar QC and HJ Bell for Defendant Kulu

MN Pecotic for Defendant Finau BL Sellars QC for Defendant Ikuia

Judgment:

7 November 2019

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland. SJ Bonnar QC, Auckland. BL Sellars QC, Auckland. RM Mansfield, Auckland. MN Pecotic, Auckland.
HJ Bell, Auckland.

R v FANGUPO [2019] NZHC 2896 [7 November 2019]

Charges

[1] Mr Kulu, Mr Fangupo, Mr Finau, Mr Ikuia; you are for sentence for importing methamphetamine. Except for Mr Ikuia, there were other serious charges too. I list everything:

(a)Mr Kulu: nine charges of importing methamphetamine; conspiring to import methamphetamine; two of attempting to import methamphetamine; two of supplying methamphetamine; three of offering to supply that drug; importing cocaine; and four charges of unlawful possession of a firearm. You pleaded guilty to the firearms offences at the beginning of trial. You were found guilty of everything else.

(b)Mr Fangupo: eight charges of importing methamphetamine; conspiring to import methamphetamine; two of attempting to import methamphetamine; importing cocaine; and unlawful possession of a firearm. You pleaded guilty to the firearm offence at the beginning of trial. You were found guilty of everything else.

(c)Mr Finau: three charges of importing methamphetamine; supplying it; conspiring to supply it; possession for supply; importing cocaine; two charges of unlawful possession of a firearm; and unlawful possession of ammunition. You pleaded guilty to the possession for supply charge and the Arms Act offences at the beginning of trial. You too were found guilty of everything else.

(d)Mr Ikuia: you pleaded guilty before trial of importing methamphetamine. There are no other charges for you.

[2] Importing methamphetamine is punishable by imprisonment for life. So too supplying the drug, possessing it for supply, and offering to supply it. Conspiring to import methamphetamine has a 14-year maximum; attempting to do so, 10 years.

These penalties recognise the misery caused by methamphetamine, a topic recently addressed by the Court of Appeal. I today apply its revised guideline judgment.1

An overview of the offending

[3] Between June 2017 and January 2018, you, Mr Fangupo, and you, Mr Kulu, imported large amounts of methamphetamine to New Zealand from California. Your offending was reasonably sophisticated. You followed a pattern. You sourced methamphetamine in California, albeit the drug likely came from Mexico. Your California contacts sent the drugs here. You took and remitted money to California to pay your American suppliers. All of the methamphetamine came here by post. All came to Auckland. Each package had a similar consignment note. Each package declared clothing, most with reference to the Nike label. Most packages described their contents as a gift. Most contained Nike footwear. The methamphetamine in each was…

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 Fangupo

Details

AGLC: R v Fangupo [2019] NZHC 2896
Case: [2019] NZHC 2896
Decision Date: 7 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Fangupo involved four defendants who were charged with various drug-related offences, including the importation of methamphetamine and cocaine, as well as possession of firearms. The defendants were part of a larger drug trafficking operation that involved importing large quantities of methamphetamine from California into New Zealand. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for each defendant, taking into account the severity of their involvement in the drug trafficking operation, the quantities of drugs involved, and their individual roles within the operation.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting points for the sentences, whether to uplift the sentences for the possession of firearms, and what mitigating factors should be considered for each defendant. The court had to balance the severity of the offences with the individual circumstances of each defendant, including their roles in the drug trafficking operation, their personal circumstances, and any mitigating factors that could justify a lesser sentence.

The court found that the two main defendants, Mr Kulu and Mr Fangupo, had leading roles in the drug trafficking operation and were equally responsible for the importation of large quantities of methamphetamine. The court imposed a starting point of 20 years for Mr Kulu and 19 years for Mr Fangupo, taking into account the large quantities of drugs involved and their commercial motives. For the other two defendants, Mr Finau and Mr Ikuia, the court found that they played lesser roles in the operation and imposed lower starting points of eight years and five years respectively. The court also considered the possession of firearms by some of the defendants but decided not to uplift their sentences due to the unusual circumstances of the case. Finally, the court considered various mitigating factors for each defendant, such as their age, personal circumstances, and prospects of rehabilitation, and applied appropriate discounts to their sentences.

The final orders of the court were as follows: Mr Kulu was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 10 years; Mr Fangupo was sentenced to 17 years' imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 8.5 years; Mr Finau was sentenced to 8.5 years' imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 4.25 years; and Mr Ikuia was sentenced to 3 years and 4 months' imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months.

Orders