R v Hikaka - [2013] NZHC 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2011-043-2338 [2013] NZHC 2014

THE QUEEN

v

DALLAS FRANCIS HIKAKA

Hearing: 9 August 2013

Counsel: C E Clarke for Crown
S W Hughes QC for Prisoner

Sentence: 9 August 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] Mr Hikaka you have been convicted by a jury of the following offences: (a) participation in an organised criminal group;1 and
(b) conspiracy to supply cannabis.2

[2] So that you too know where you stand, I am telling you that you will not be going to prison. You will instead serve a sentence of nine months’ home detention.

[3] These sentencing remarks are to be read in conjunction with those of your co- offenders Jade James and Garry Dewar.3 I have just sentenced Mr Dewar to twelve months’ home detention. Much of what I said to him applies equally to you, and I
will try to avoid unnecessary repetition.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2A)(c).
3      R v Dewar [2013] NZHC 2010.

R v HIKAKA [2013] NZHC 2014 [9 August 2013]

Facts

[4] You are 43 years old. The charges against you arose out of Operation Puff, a drug offending operation which I have just described in sentencing Mr James and Mr Dewar.

[5] You were the Vice President of the Rebels motorcycle gang in Taranaki. I have commented already that this gang was a small start-up branch of a wider organisation. I do not diminish the seriousness of drug-dealing as a crime. But as I have already said, the drug-dealing activities of this group centred around the gang’s Sergeant at Arms, Mr Nathan Couper, who has been sentenced by this Court to a sentence of five years and five months’ imprisonment. It was a “wheel and spoke” conspiracy, with Mr Couper at the hub. Mr Couper’s talents did not lie in covert criminal activity. Detection was inevitable. Things had barely got going when detection occurred.

Participation in an organised criminal group

[6] You admitted that you had dealt the Class C drug BZP to Mr Couper and another co-accused, Mr Green. You knew that Mr Couper was involved in sourcing and selling drugs. You handled some proceeds of the dealing. You assisted Mr Couper to grow and supply cannabis.

[7] The verdicts of the jury suggest that it saw your participation in the organised criminal group as confined to cannabis and BZP. I discharged you on a count of cultivating cannabis. The jury convicted you of conspiring to sell cannabis cultivated by others. I discharged you on the charge of conspiring to supply cocaine, as I did Mr Dewar, being satisfied that you could not safely be convicted of that charge. The jury acquitted you on the most serious charge, conspiracy to supply methamphetamine. It could not agree on the further charge of conspiracy to supply Class C varieties of ecstasy. This morning the Crown offered no further…

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 Hikaka

Details

AGLC: R v Hikaka [2013] NZHC 2014
Case: [2013] NZHC 2014
Decision Date: 9 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Justice Kós presided over the sentencing of Dallas Francis Hikaka, who had been convicted of participating in an organised criminal group and conspiring to supply cannabis. The case revolved around Hikaka's involvement in the Rebels motorcycle gang in Taranaki, which was involved in drug dealing activities centred around the gang's Sergeant at Arms, Nathan Couper. The court had to decide on an appropriate sentence for Hikaka, considering the principles and purposes of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The court considered Hikaka's role in the gang, his culpability, and his efforts towards rehabilitation.

The court found that Hikaka's role in the organised criminal group was limited to the sale of cannabis and BZP. Given his involvement, the court decided that a starting point of two years' imprisonment was appropriate for the charge of participating in an organised criminal group. For the charge of conspiracy to sell cannabis, the court determined that a sentence of one year and nine months' imprisonment would be suitable, subject to adjustments for Hikaka's personal circumstances. The court also considered the overlap between the two charges, ultimately deciding that the lead charge adequately reflected the totality of Hikaka's offending. After taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors, the court decided on a sentence of one year and seven months' imprisonment for Hikaka.

In light of Hikaka's short-term sentence and his efforts towards rehabilitation, the court decided on a sentence of nine months' home detention, with conditions to enable him to continue employment and to ensure compliance with the terms of his sentence. The court also imposed standard post-release conditions for a period of six months. This sentence was deemed appropriate as it recognised the more good than bad in Hikaka and provided a short, sharp term that would likely secure his rehabilitation effectively, without depriving him of his liberty for an extended period.

Orders