R v Latifi - [2014] NZHC 2263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-004-018458 [2014] NZHC 2263

THE QUEEN

v

MORTEZA LATIFI

Hearings: 2 May and 17 September 2014

Counsel:

S L McColgan for the Crown
L B Cordwell for the Prisoner

Sentence:

17 September 2014

SENTENCE OF DUFFY J

Counsel: L B Cordwell, Auckland

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v LATIFI [2014] NZHC 2263 [17 September 2014]

[1] Mr Latifi, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiring to supply a class A controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, under s 6(2A)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment. You are 46 years of age.

Facts

[2] Your co-offender, Mr Soleymani, was sentenced earlier this year for possession of methamphetamine for supply and possession of pseudoephedrine for supply. He received a total sentence of 15 years, four months’ imprisonment.

[3] Mr da Silva is someone who came to New Zealand from Japan on two occasions for the purpose of accepting deliveries of suitcases containing methamphetamine, extracting the drug from the suitcases, repackaging it and delivering it to Mr Soleymani on two occasions. Mr da Silva was acting under the direction of a man based in the Netherlands whom the New Zealand Police (“police”) refer to as Michael O’Connor.

[4] Mr da Silva first came to New Zealand in February 2012. On that occasion, he made the first delivery of methamphetamine on or about 10 March 2012 and the second delivery on or about 1 April 2012. He then left New Zealand. Mr da Silva returned to New Zealand in September 2012. He was apprehended by the police in October 2012. He agreed to assist the police with their enquiries into the importation and distribution of methamphetamine in New Zealand. He became a protected witness for the Crown. In this role, he carried out one further delivery of methamphetamine, on 15 November 2012, under police supervision.

[5] On the second occasion that Mr da Silva visited New Zealand, he remained in New Zealand for longer than was originally planned, at the request of Mr O’Connor. To do this, Mr da Silva needed additional funds to cover his expenses in New Zealand. Arrangements were made by Mr O’Connor for the delivery of a cash payment to Mr da Silva to cover those expenses while he waited for the November delivery. Mr Latifi, you were the person who delivered the funds to Mr da Silva. By

this time, Mr da Silva had been arrested and he was cooperating with the police, so they were aware of the plans to deliver those funds.

[6] Under covert police surveillance, Mr da Silva met you on 27 October 2012 outside Burger King at Aotea Square. You gave Mr da Silva a bundle of cash, totalling exactly $10,000. You were driving a vehicle registered in your name at the address of 53A Wintere Road, Papatoetoe. After the delivery of money, police followed you to an address in the vicinity…

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 Latifi

Details

AGLC: R v Latifi [2014] NZHC 2263
Case: [2014] NZHC 2263
Decision Date: 17 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Latifi was heard by Duffy J, who sentenced Morteza Latifi on a charge of conspiring to supply a class A controlled drug, methamphetamine. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years imprisonment. The court took into consideration the offender's minor role in the drug operation, his family responsibilities, and efforts to turn his life around since his first drug-related conviction. The court decided that a sentence of 12 months' home detention, with specific conditions, was appropriate in this case. The decision was based on the principles of accountability, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as the need to impose the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances. The court also considered personal aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the offender's guilty plea. The sentence of home detention was considered the least restrictive option, taking into account the offender's minor role in the drug operation, family responsibilities, and efforts to address his drug addiction and offending behaviour.

Orders