R v Keresoma - [2014] NZHC 2803

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-225 [2014] NZHC 2803

THE QUEEN

v

ISAIAH TIMOTHI KERESOMA

Hearing: 30 October 2014

Appearances:

E J McCaughan for the Crown
G N E Bradford for the Defendant

Sentencedate:

30 October 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF THOMAS J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland.

Counsel:
G N E Bradford, Auckland.

R v KERESOMA [2014] NZHC 2803 [30 October 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Keresoma, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(a) one representative charge of manufacturing methamphetamine; (b) one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine;
(c) one charge of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine; and

(d) one representative charge of possessing a firearm.

[2] The maximum penalty on the manufacturing and supplying charges is life imprisonment. On the attempt charge the maximum penalty is 10 years and on the possession of a firearm charge, the maximum is four years.

Facts

[3] The facts of the offending in respect of the representative charge of manufacturing methamphetamine are that between 19 January 2012 and 23 February
2012 you assisted Mr Davoren and other associates to manufacture an unidentified amount of methamphetamine on four different occasions. Your role was to provide various pieces of equipment for the manufacture, including a parr bomb and a steam distiller. On occasions, you also provided other material such as salts, pH sticks and bags of ice.

[4] The facts relating to the supply charge are that between 8 and 26 August 2012 you supplied methamphetamine on 18 different occasions to seven different purchasers. The total amount of methamphetamine supplied was no more than four and a half grams.

[5] With regard to the charge of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, the facts are that at about 12.05 am on 30 August 2012 the Police executed a search

warrant on an address on Vine Street in Mangere East. You and two associates were located in a large garage at the rear of the property. In the garage the Police located items consistent with an attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, such as a parr bomb, chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and equipment such as a gas burner and pH meters. The parr bomb was warm to the touch and was found to contain extraction of pseudoephedrine from pharmaceutical preparations. The material weighed 16.4 grams.

[6] In respect of the representative possession of a firearm, on 30 August 2012 the Police searched a house at Sam Place in Mangere. In a bedroom they located your passport, a Remington shotgun, a disassembled twelve gauge under/over shotgun and a belt containing 25 twelve gauge shotgun rounds. Both of the shotguns were operational.

Personal circumstances

[7] You do have a criminal record and you have served in the past a sentence of home detention. The Crown, however, does not seek an uplift for your previous offending.

[8] You attended secondary school until age 18. You then went to work for Aotea Centre’s in-house security for about five years. Then you undertook some study towards 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 Keresoma

Details

AGLC: R v Keresoma [2014] NZHC 2803
Case: [2014] NZHC 2803
Decision Date: 30 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Isaiah Timoti Keresoma was sentenced for multiple drug-related and firearm charges. The defendant had pleaded guilty to manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine, attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, and possessing a firearm. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence, taking into account the defendant's personal circumstances and the impact of his offending on the community. The legal issues included whether the defendant's personal circumstances warranted a discount on his sentence and the appropriate weight to give to factors such as his role in the offending, his remorse, and his rehabilitation efforts.

The court examined the defendant's personal circumstances, including his employment history, his involvement with his church, and his family responsibilities. The court also considered the nature and extent of the defendant's involvement in the offending, the harm caused to the community, and the need for deterrence. The court found that the defendant's personal circumstances did not justify a discount on his sentence, but did take into account the time he had spent on electronically monitored bail. The court also considered the defendant's guilty plea and his efforts to rehabilitate himself. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to a total of six years and four months' imprisonment, with concurrent sentences for each charge.

The court's reasoning was based on the need to balance the defendant's personal circumstances with the need for deterrence and the protection of the community. The court found that the defendant's offending was serious and had a significant impact on the community. The court also found that the defendant had shown some remorse and had taken steps to rehabilitate himself, but that these factors did not outweigh the need for a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offending. The court's outcome reflected a careful consideration of all the relevant factors and a determination to impose a sentence that was just and appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders