R v Kelemete - [2025] NZHC 2539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2023-004-008430

[2025] NZHC 2539

THE KING

v

IEREMUS CONSTANTINO SUA KELEMETE

Hearing: 2 September 2025

Appearances:

M Tutton-Harris and A Thompson for the Crown D Nairn on behalf of T Clee for the Defendant

Judgment:

2 September 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF POWELL J

R v IEREMUS CONSTANTINO SUA KELEMETE [2025] NZHC 2539 [2 September 2025]

[1] Ieremus Sua Kelemete, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a single charge of burglary.1

[2] The burglary to which you have pleaded guilty was a serious one. It involved a group of three people driving from Auckland to Tauranga where, after casing the target premises, two of those present cut a hole in the perimeter fence and entered the Port of Tauranga. They were seeking to retrieve 26 kilograms of cocaine from a particular container located in the secure area of the Port. The third member, the driver, waited next to the hole in the fence. All three were apprehended within a short period without having retrieved the cocaine.

[3] You were not present at the burglary. You were liable as a party pursuant to s 66 of the Crimes Act 1961 with the exact legal basis for your liability not spelled out in the documents before me.2 There is no dispute that your involvement in the burglary was limited to arranging the driver at some point prior to the burglary. There is, however, no evidence you were told what the driver was required for other than your admission, contained in the summary of facts, that the “job means something illegal when [you arrange the] driver for a job”.

Approach to sentencing

[4] I turn now to the approach I must take in sentencing you today. I note first I must take account of the general purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in the Sentencing Act 2002.

[5] In particular, the sentence I impose is intended to hold you accountable for your role in the offending, to denounce and deter your conduct, and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 231(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment. A charge of importing cocaine, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(a) and Crimes Act 1961, s 66 was withdrawn by the Crown at commencement of the sentencing.
2      The charge as a party was particularised only under s 66 without specifying whether subsection
(1)   or (2) applied.   The Supreme Court in Ahsin has made it clear that a person charged under   s 66(1) must know “both the physical and mental elements of the essential facts of the offence to be committed by the principal offender”. Mere knowledge that “something illegal” is intended by the principal party will not be enough. Likewise, it is not evident from the summary of facts that there was a “common intention” as subsection (2) requires. See Ashin…

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 Kelemete

Details

AGLC: R v Kelemete [2025] NZHC 2539
Case: [2025] NZHC 2539
Decision Date: 2 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Ieremusu Constantino Sua Kelemete, appeared before the High Court of New Zealand Tauranga Registry for sentencing on a charge of burglary. The defendant had pleaded guilty to being a party to a burglary at the Port of Tauranga, where a group of three individuals attempted to retrieve 26 kilograms of cocaine from a secure container. Although the defendant was not present during the burglary, he was held liable as a party to the crime for arranging a driver prior to the incident. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence and assessing personal factors to decide the final sentence.

The court first considered the starting point for the sentence, weighing the arguments from both the Crown and the defendant's counsel. The Crown argued for a higher starting point due to the planning and potential harm of the crime, while the defence submitted that the defendant's involvement was minimal and lacked sophistication. The court found that the burglary was not sophisticated and was inept, and therefore fixed the starting point at 10 months' imprisonment. The court then assessed personal factors, including the defendant's age, lack of a criminal record, good character, and positive rehabilitation prospects. The court accepted the full 25% discount for the guilty plea and an additional 5% for good character, resulting in a total allowance of 30% and a notional end sentence of six months' imprisonment.

The court evaluated various sentencing options, including home detention, community detention, and community work with supervision. Given the defendant's limited involvement in the crime and his demonstrated rehabilitation progress, the court concluded that electronic monitoring was unnecessary. Instead, the court opted for a sentence of 150 hours of community work and 12 months of supervision to hold the defendant accountable, denounce the offending, and support his rehabilitation without disrupting his employment.

Orders