Legal Research
Cases
R v Halaholo

R v Halaholo

Case [2022] NZHC 3031 18 November 2022

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 2020-004-9587

[2022] NZHC 3031

THE KING

v

SAMUEL HALAHOLO

Hearing: 18 November 2022

Appearances:

B Kirkpatrick for the Crown C Robertson for the defendant

Date:

18 November 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF CAMPBELL J

R v HALAHOLO [2022] NZHC 3031 [18 November 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Halaholo, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply,1 a charge of possession of methamphetamine,2 a charge of supplying MDMA,3 and a charge of possession of MDMA for supply.4

[2] My job today, on behalf of the community, is to sentence you for those offences.

Offending

[3] I will start by outlining your offending. This outline is based on the summary of facts which you accepted when you pleaded guilty.

[4] You were a nominee of the Comancheros Motorcycle Club. In March 2020, acting under the direction of the Comancheros national commander, Seiana Fakaosilea, you and a co-offender, Diamond Katoa, uplifted an unknown commercial quantity of methamphetamine. You were driven from Auckland to Hamilton airport, where you boarded a flight to Christchurch. You were met at Christchurch airport by Rhakim Mataia. Mr Mataia and Mr Katoa then supplied the methamphetamine to the Rebels Motorcycle Club in Christchurch. You and Mr Katoa flew back to Auckland.

[5] In December 2020, at the end of its investigation, Police found six containers at your home. They held 15 g of methamphetamine residue. Police found a satchel bag in your bedroom containing 26.1 g of MDMA and empty deal bags. Police located you at another property, where they found a further 2 g of MDMA.

[6] The investigation revealed that you were involved in the supply of MDMA at the direction of Mr Fakaosilea. During 2019 and 2020, you were possessing and supplying caps, ounces and bags of MDMA. You did this as part of a group collective,

1      Section 6(1)(f) and 2(a). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
2      Section 7(1)(a) and (2). Maximum penalty: six months’ imprisonment or a $1,000 fine.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and 2(b). Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 6(1)(f) and 2(b). Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.

with Mr Fakaosilea at the top of the hierarchy, directing the supply, and other dealers working under you.

Approach to sentencing

[7] The Sentencing Act 2002 sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing that I have to follow. Here, relevant purposes include holding you accountable for the harm that your offending has done to the community, promoting in you a sense of responsibility for that harm, denouncing your conduct, deterring you and others from committing similar offending, and also assisting in your rehabilitation.5

[8] The principles include the need to consider the gravity of your offending and your degree of culpability, the seriousness of these offences and the general desirability for consistency in sentencing. I must also impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate…

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 Halaholo

Details

AGLC: R v Halaholo [2022] NZHC 3031
Case: [2022] NZHC 3031
Decision Date: 18 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant, Samuel Halaholo, appeared for sentencing following his guilty plea to charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply, possession of methamphetamine, supplying MDMA, and possession of MDMA for supply. The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the purposes and principles of sentencing outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002, and assessing the starting point for the sentence based on the seriousness of the offending, the defendant's role in the offending, and his culpability. The court also needed to consider the defendant's personal circumstances, including his background, remorse, and rehabilitation prospects, to determine any adjustments to the starting point.

The court first established the starting point for the defendant's sentence, taking into account his methamphetamine and MDMA offending. The court considered the quantity of drugs involved and the defendant's role in the offending, finding that his role was on the cusp of being lesser and significant. The court then adjusted the starting point for the defendant's personal circumstances, including his good character prior to offending, his youth and the difficult situation he found himself in at the time, his remorse, and his rehabilitative prospects. The court also allowed for the time the defendant spent on restrictive bail and his guilty plea. After considering all these factors, the court determined an end sentence of one year and eleven months' imprisonment. However, given the defendant's progress in rehabilitation and prospects for continued rehabilitation, the court decided that a sentence of ten months' home detention was the most appropriate outcome. The court ordered that the defendant serve the sentence of home detention at a specified address, subject to certain conditions.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant, Samuel Halaholo, be sentenced to ten months' home detention for each of the four charges, to be served concurrently, at the address specified in the memorandum from the Department of Corrections dated 17 November 2022, subject to the home detention conditions set out in paragraphs 1 through 8 of the memorandum.

Orders