Legal Research
Cases
R v Le'Ca

R v Le'Ca

Case [2018] NZHC 274 27 February 2018

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-092-11616

[2018] NZHC 274

THE QUEEN

v

ADRIAN LE’CA

Hearing: 27 February 2018

Appearances:

K E Hogan for the Crown

A J Maxwell-Scott and E van Son for the defendant

Judgment:

27 February 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Manukau Counsel: A M Scott, Auckland

R v LE’CA [2018] NZHC 274 [27 February 2018]

Introduction

[1] Mr Le’Ca, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to three charges relating to the importation of methamphetamine:

(a)Importation of a class A controlled drug (methamphetamine);1

(b)Possession of a class A drug for supply (methamphetamine);2 and

(c)Possession of a class A drug for supply (cocaine).3

[2]The maximum penalty for each charge is life imprisonment.4

[3] I will begin by briefly summarising parts of the factual background which, in my view, are relevant to the sentence I will impose.

Factual background

[4] Mr Le’Ca, you were involved in a methamphetamine importation operation that utilised the international mail system. Through the combined efforts of the New Zealand Police and New Zealand Customs, the operation came to light.

[5] You did not conduct this operation alone. You had help. The charges you pleaded guilty to, and for which you are to be sentenced, relate to specific instances. The possession for supply charges relate to an incident on 30 September 2016. On that day, you and your co-offender, Fred Uputaua, met up with a third person at Totara Park in Manurewa. That third person placed a sports bag containing 14.9 kilograms of methamphetamine and 1.923 kilograms of cocaine in Mr Uputaua’s car. You supervised the exchange from your car parked nearby.

[6] The importation charge relates to a package containing 1.362 kilograms of methamphetamine intercepted by Customs on 8 May 2016.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a).
2      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(f).
3      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(f).
4      Section 6(2)(a).

[7] Your co-offenders have already been sentenced. Duffy J sentenced both Queenie Matthews and Meinata Piahana on 10 November 2017.5 Ms Matthews is your sister, while Mr Piahana is your nephew. Both received a sentence of 11 months’ home detention.6 Those sentences are in no way reflective of the sentence that I am going to impose on you. Duffy J described the role of Ms Matthews and Mr Piahana as “a support role, sometimes described as that of a “catcher””.7 She further commented:

[12] … There is no indication that you opened the packages of methamphetamine that were sent to your address, or arranged for their distribution. You did not have any sophisticated involvement in planning the scheme …

[8] On the other hand, Duffy J labelled your offending as much more serious.8 She regarded the personal circumstances of Ms Matthews and Mr Piahana as “unique and exceptional”.9 This therefore warranted a “departure from the general approach that this Court applies in sentencing for this type of offending”.10 As will…

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 Le'Ca

Details

AGLC: R v Le'Ca [2018] NZHC 274
Case: [2018] NZHC 274
Decision Date: 27 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adrian Le’Ca was convicted of three drug importation charges, including the possession and importation of methamphetamine and possession of cocaine. The Crown sought a sentence of imprisonment, while the defence sought a sentence of home detention. The sentencing judge, Gordon J, first identified the appropriate starting point for the sentence, which was 18 years’ imprisonment. The starting point was then uplifted by three years to account for the totality of the offending. The defence submitted that personal circumstances warranted a reduction of the starting point, but the judge did not accept this. The defence also submitted that the defendant was entitled to a 25 per cent discount for his guilty plea, which the judge accepted. The judge then imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent. The defendant was sentenced to 15 years and nine months’ imprisonment on the charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply, seven years on the charge of possession of cocaine for supply, and seven years on the charge of importing methamphetamine, with all sentences to run concurrently. The defendant was also ordered to serve a minimum of seven years and 10 months’ imprisonment before being eligible for parole.

Orders