R v Iuvale - [2024] NZHC 3446

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-004-7913

[2024] NZHC 3446

THE KING

v

NIGEL IUVALE TUNGANE MANUEL

Hearing: 15 November 2024

Counsel:

T A Veikune for Crown

M J Taylor-Cyphers and O Hintze for Defendant Iuvale Defendant Manuel in Person
N S Leader as standby counsel for Defendant Manuel

Sentenced:

15 November 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Meredith Connell, Auckland. M J Taylor-Cyphers, Auckland. N S Leader, Auckland.

Copy to Mr Manuel.

R v IUVALE AND ANOR [2024] NZHC 3446 [15 November 2024]

Introduction [1]

The offending[4]

Operation Selena[4]

Operation Schrute[27]

The principles and purpose of sentencing [32]

Mr Iuvale[43]

Personal mitigating factors[63]

Minimum period of imprisonment[77]

End sentence[80]

Mr Manuel[83]

Personal mitigating factors[95]

Minimum period of imprisonment[101]

End sentence[105]

Introduction

[1] Mr Iuvale and Mr Manuel, you appear for sentence today having each been found guilty following a recent jury trial.

[2] Mr Manuel, you were found guilty of two charges of importing methamphetamine for supply,1 and one charge of conspiracy to import methamphetamine for supply.2

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
2 Section 6(2A). Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.

[3] Mr Iuvale, you were found guilty of one charge possession of methamphetamine for supply,3 and one charge of conspiracy to import methamphetamine for supply,4 and you will also be sentenced today for charges relating to a similar methamphetamine operation for which you were found guilty by a jury in the District Court. In the District Court you were found guilty of one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.5

The offending

Operation Selena

[4] In June 2021, the New Zealand Police commenced a joint investigation with the New Zealand Customs service (Operation Selena). Operation Selena arose after previous joint investigations identified a number of syndicates involved in the importation of drugs, mostly methamphetamine, including two syndicates operating out of Auckland International Airport (the Airport).

[5] Operation Selena involved methamphetamine imported into New Zealand, primarily from Malaysia, aboard aircrafts terminating at the Airport. Corrupt baggage handlers would then remove the methamphetamine from the aircrafts and the Airport, bypassing security and customs processes, so that the methamphetamine could be distributed.

[6] Mr Iuvale, you are said to be a leader in this operation — coordinating and arranging the importations through your contacts at the Airport. A key contact was Matangi Piukana who worked for Air New Zealand as a Service Delivery Leader.

[7] Mr Manuel, you played a role lower down in the hierarchy of the syndicate as a baggage handler at the Airport. You conveyed information about the flights to other members of the syndicate and I find that you did provide airside assistance to an extent — although I do not necessarily find that you had to physically handle the boxes to do that.

3      Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
4      Section 6(2A). Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(a).…

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 Iuvale

Details

AGLC: R v Iuvale [2024] NZHC 3446
Case: [2024] NZHC 3446
Decision Date: 15 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Iuvale and Manuel, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, concerns the sentencing of Nigel Iuvale Tungane Manuel and Mr Manuel, who were found guilty of various drug importation and conspiracy charges following a trial. Iuvale, a key figure in drug importation operations through Auckland International Airport, was convicted of multiple charges including possession and conspiracy to import methamphetamine. Mr Manuel, a baggage handler at the airport, was found guilty of importing methamphetamine and conspiracy to import. The court meticulously detailed the roles both played in these sophisticated drug importation schemes. The sentencing process considered the severity of the offences, the roles played by each defendant, and the need to maintain parity with co-defendants. Iuvale was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment with a minimum period of nine years, reflecting his leading role and the significant scale of his involvement. Mr Manuel, while playing a crucial role, was sentenced to 11 years and six months' imprisonment, with no minimum period, considering his lesser role and the impact of his incarceration on his family. The court emphasized the importance of deterring future drug importation and the corrosive effect of such crimes on communities.

Orders