[1] Mr Haeata, you appear for sentence after having accepted a sentence indication provided by me on 10 April 2017. You have pleaded guilty to two charges of supplying methamphetamine, four charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply, and one charge of offering to supply methamphetamine, and you have been convicted on those charges.

Facts

[2] You were charged following termination of an investigation called

“Operation Bunk”.

[3] Operation Bunk involved obtaining surveillance device warrants to allow interception of private communications of people other than you. As a result of the device surveillance, and separate production orders relating to the cellphone attributed to you, call and text data involving you was obtained.

[4] As a combined result of the surveillance warrants and CCTV monitoring, the Police identified seven occasions when you supplied, possessed for the purpose of supply, or offered to supply, methamphetamine. You operated as a street dealer and were yourself a user of methamphetamine. You have been found to have supplied
4 grams of methamphetamine, been in possession at various times of 8 grams, and offered to supply 3 grams of methamphetamine. The total amount involved in your offending was 15 grams.

Personal circumstances

[5] The pre-sentence report was of course not available at the time of the sentence indication.

[6] You are 38 years old. You have reported as currently being single and having no dependants. You were working in a fencing job prior to your remand and bail. You are currently in receipt of a sickness benefit and have outstanding fines concerning traffic-related matters.

[7] The report-writer noted that your offending-related factors are your drug use, lifestyle and associates, and your sense of entitlement. You acknowledged that your own “P” addiction led to the supply convictions you are now facing.

[8] You have a moderate previous conviction history, mainly involving violence or disorder offending, between 1996 and 2014. You have one previous conviction relating to drugs, which was possession of cannabis in 2010.

[9] The report-writer assessed you as being at a medium risk of reoffending and harm, based on your previous conviction history and propensity for violence. The report-writer also recorded that you have been subject to rehabilitative sentences of supervision, intensive supervision and one sentence of parole, all of which you were compliant with, and no court action was required for non-compliance. You have not been subject to an electronically monitored sentence before.

[10] The pre-sentence report recorded that the proposed home detention address, which is your mother’s address in Flaxmere, is technically feasible to manage a sentence of home detention, if imposed. Your mother is the only occupant of the address and has…

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 Haeata

Details

AGLC: R v Haeata [2017] NZHC 959
Case: [2017] NZHC 959
Decision Date: 11 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the defendant Andrew Haeata was sentenced following a guilty plea to multiple charges related to the supply and possession of methamphetamine. The charges included two counts of supplying methamphetamine, four counts of possession of methamphetamine for supply, and one count of offering to supply methamphetamine. The total amount of methamphetamine involved in the offending was 15 grams. Haeata was sentenced to twelve months of home detention, with concurrent terms on each charge.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence, adjusting that starting point based on personal aggravating and mitigating factors, and applying a discount for Haeata's guilty plea. The court adopted a starting point of three years' imprisonment, considering the amount of methamphetamine involved and the commercial nature of Haeata's offending, which was partly driven by his own drug addiction. Mitigating factors included Haeata's efforts at rehabilitation, including participation in Narcotics Anonymous and voluntary work in the community, which were supported by affidavits from a clinical psychologist and his general practitioner. These efforts led to a six-month deduction from the starting point. The court also applied a 20% discount for Haeata's guilty plea.

The court concluded that a sentence of twelve months' home detention was appropriate, given Haeata's efforts at rehabilitation and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The sentence was to include specific conditions such as abstaining from alcohol and drugs, notifying a probation officer of employment changes, and attending any directed counselling or treatment. The judge emphasized the importance of Haeata obtaining employment or voluntary work during his sentence and warned that any failure to rehabilitate would result in a harsher sentence in the future.

Orders