R v Kereti - [2013] NZHC 2037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-021-001074 [2013] NZHC 2037

THE QUEEN

v

THOMAS KERETI JESSICA OTENE

Charge:

Plea:

Possession of cannabis plant for supply

Guilty

Counsel:

SA Law for Crown R Rai for Kereti

TT Bolstad for Otene

Sentenced:

12 August 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors: C&M Legal (New Plymouth) for Crown
Till Henderson (Stratford) for Kereti Turitea Bolstad (New Plymouth) for Otene

R v KERETI & OTENE [2013] NZHC 2037 [12 August 2013]

Introduction

[1] Mr Kereti and Ms Otene, you have each pleaded guilty to one charge of possessing cannabis for the purpose of supply. The maximum penalty is eight years’ imprisonment.

Facts

[2] On 5 December 2012, Police executed a search warrant at your address in Hawera. You were both in a back shed on the property, spotting cannabis.

[3] The Police found two cannabis tinnies in a plastic container in the shed. They also found a further 11 cannabis tinnies in an aluminium water bottle that was in your handbag, Ms Otene. The Police seized a cellphone, which both of you have admitted using. It recorded text messages indicating that you were offering to supply cannabis.

[4] Mr Kereti, you told the Police that the cannabis was for your own use and that you did not sell cannabis. You said that it was in tinfoil to “keep it fresh”. Ms Otene, you claimed that the cannabis was yours and that you used it for medicinal purposes. You did say that you obtained cannabis from your supplier on behalf of other people in order to obtain a “freebie”.

[5] I have to sentence you on the basis that you have pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis for supply. I can, and will, take into account that some of the cannabis found in your possession on this day would have been for your personal use.

Purposes and principles of sentencing

[6] The Sentencing Act 2002 sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing to which I must pay regard.1 In your cases, I need to balance the need to hold you accountable for your offending with the need to assist with your rehabilitation and reintegration. What that means, and what your lawyers have been at pains to tell me, is that sentencing is not just about punishment. It is also about looking at you

1 Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7 and 8.

individually, knowing that you will remain members of our community, so that the sentences I impose are the least restrictive reasonable in the circumstances. However, I must also try to be consistent with the sentences given to other offenders in circumstances similar to yours.

Personal circumstances

Mr Kereti

[7] Mr Kereti, you have appeared before the Court on numerous occasions. You are 28 years old and your criminal record dates back to 2005. You have one conviction for possession of cannabis which you received in 2006. You were sentenced to 18 months’ supervision, although that sentence means very little…

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 Kereti

Details

AGLC: R v Kereti [2013] NZHC 2037
Case: [2013] NZHC 2037
Decision Date: 12 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Kereti dealt with the sentencing of Thomas Kereti and Jessica Otene, who had pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis for supply. The primary legal issue was determining an appropriate sentence that balanced accountability, deterrence, and the prospects for rehabilitation. The court had to consider the defendants' criminal history, the extent of their involvement in the offence, and their potential for rehabilitation.

The court, Brewer J, began by establishing a starting point for sentencing based on the case of R v Terewi, which categorised the defendants' offence as a limited extent commercial venture. Both defendants fell within category two of the case, but at the lowest end, resulting in a starting point of 20 months' imprisonment. The court applied a 25% discount for their guilty pleas, reducing the starting point to 15 months' imprisonment. For Ms Otene, the court imposed a sentence of seven months and two weeks of home detention, considering her employment, steps taken to address her drug addiction, and the potential benefits of rehabilitation. In contrast, Mr Kereti was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment due to concerns about his compliance with home detention and lack of serious attempts at rehabilitation. The court also ordered the destruction of the seized cannabis and utensils.

The court's decision highlighted the importance of individual circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation in determining an appropriate sentence, balancing the need for punishment with the opportunity for reintegration into society.

Orders