R v Huirama - [2018] NZHC 864

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2016-070-005102

[2018] NZHC 864

THE QUEEN

v

GAYNE TUITONGA HUIRAMA

Hearing: 30 April 2018

Appearances:

S J P Davison for Crown W T Nabney for Defendant

Judgment:

30 April 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v HUIRAMA [2018] NZHC 864 [30 April 2018]

[1] Mr Huirama, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to charges of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply and cultivating cannabis. The maximum sentence on the methamphetamine charge is life imprisonment. The maximum sentence on the cannabis charge is seven years imprisonment. You were also charged with diverting electricity for the purpose of cultivating cannabis. The Crown has offered no evidence on that charge, and you are now discharged on it pursuant to s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[2] You pleaded guilty following a sentence indication given by me on 8 March 2018.1 The facts on which the charges are based are fully set out in the sentence indication and I do not propose to traverse them here. In short, you were found in possession of 56 grams of methamphetamine on 13 October 2016, and you were found in August 2016 to have been carrying out a significant cannabis growing operation from your house.

[3] I took a starting point of four years imprisonment on the methamphetamine charge and then added an uplift of 18 months to reflect the cultivation charge. This produced an end sentence of five years six months imprisonment before taking into account mitigating factors. I allowed 14 months, or 20 per cent, to reflect guilty pleas if they were to be entered shortly after the indication. You entered your pleas within the time specified in the indication, and for that reason are entitled to the credit of 14 months for your guilty pleas.

[4] The only remaining issue is to determine whether I should reduce the sentence further to reflect other mitigating factors than your guilty pleas. Mr Nabney on your behalf submits that I should give effect to three matters. The first of these is the fact that you have expressed remorse for your offending through the comments you have made to the probation officer who prepared the pre-sentence report. Secondly, he points out that you have undertaken rehabilitative efforts in the sense that you have undertaken an eight-week course run by the Hanmer Institute to deal with your methamphetamine addiction. Thirdly, he submits that you should receive a discount

1 R v Huirama [2018] NZHC 352.

to reflect the fact that you have been subject to restrictive bail conditions for a period of one year seven months.

[5] I acknowledge that you have expressed remorse, and you have also undertaken rehabilitative efforts. The pre-sentence report also indicates that you committed these offences at a time in your life when you were depressed following the death of your mother and first cousin with whom you were…

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 Huirama

Details

AGLC: R v Huirama [2018] NZHC 864
Case: [2018] NZHC 864
Decision Date: 30 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Tauranga Registry, the case of R v Huirama involved a defendant charged with possession of methamphetamine for supply and cultivating cannabis. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, Gayne Tuitonga Huirama, who had pleaded guilty to the charges. The maximum penalty for possession of methamphetamine for supply was life imprisonment, and for cultivating cannabis, it was seven years imprisonment. An additional charge of diverting electricity for cultivating cannabis was discharged due to lack of evidence.

The legal issues before the court were the determination of an appropriate starting point for sentencing on the methamphetamine and cannabis charges, the application of any uplifts or discounts for various factors, and the final sentence to be imposed. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the offending, the defendant's culpability, and any mitigating factors, including his guilty pleas and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The court's reasoning began with a starting point of four years imprisonment for the methamphetamine charge and an additional uplift of 18 months for the cannabis charge, resulting in a total of five years and six months imprisonment. The court then applied a discount of 14 months for the defendant's guilty pleas, reducing the sentence to four years and four months imprisonment. The court further considered other mitigating factors, such as the defendant's remorse and rehabilitative efforts, and granted an additional discount of six months. The court also allowed a limited discount of two months for the defendant's time spent on restrictive bail conditions, resulting in a final sentence of three years and eight months imprisonment, to be served concurrently for both charges.

The final orders of the court were that Gayne Tuitonga Huirama was sentenced to three years and eight months imprisonment on the charge of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply and one year and four months imprisonment on the charge of cultivating cannabis. The sentences were to be served concurrently, with an effective sentence of three years and eight months imprisonment.

Orders