Legal Research
Cases
R v Lukasik

R v Lukasik

Case [2021] NZHC 1494 22 June 2021

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-2018-004-003861

[2021] NZHC 1494

THE QUEEN

v

PATRYK LUKASIK RYSZARD WILK

Hearing: 22 June 2021

Appearances:

B Dickey for the Crown

L Smith for the Defendant Lukasik A Ives for the Defendant Wilk

Judgment:

22 June 2021

(ORAL) SENTENCING REMARKS OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 June 2021 at 3.30 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

R v PATRYK LUKASIK & ANOR [2021] NZHC 1494 [22 June 2021]

Introduction

[1] Patryk Lukasik and Ryszard Wilk, you are for sentence before me today. At the conclusion of a jury trial before me in May 2021, you were both found guilty on charges relating to the importation of four kilograms of the illicit drug cocaine.

[2] Mr Wilk, you were convicted on one charge each of importing cocaine, a class A controlled drug, into New Zealand;1 conspiring to import cocaine;2 supplying cocaine;3 and possessing 3.6 grams of cocaine for the purposes of supply.4

[3] Mr Lukasik, you were convicted of one charge of importing cocaine, and one charge of money laundering of NZD 2,382.20, being the proceeds of the sale of cocaine.5

[4] The maximum penalties for these charges vary but the maximum available sentence for both the charges of importing and supplying cocaine is life imprisonment.

[5] In sentencing, it is necessary for me to set out what you have done, the circumstances and legal principles that I must, by law, apply. I will use that information to identify an appropriate starting point for your offending, based on the aggravating and mitigating features of that offending. I will then consider whether there are any factors personal to each of you which mean that the starting point should be adjusted. This two-stage process will produce the end sentence to be imposed.6

[6] Finally, I will consider whether a minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed on you, pursuant to s 86 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

[7] By way of preliminary remarks, it is relevant to both of you that Mr Wilk’s son, Ralph Wilk, pleaded guilty to a representative charge of supplying four kilograms of cocaine and one representative charge of money laundering. He was sentenced on

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(a). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Section 6(2A)(a). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
4      Sections 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(a). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act 1961, s 243(2). Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
6      Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296.

those charges in October 2018.7 The sentencing Judge adopted a global starting point of 11 years’ imprisonment which the Court of Appeal confirmed was available. This, despite his role being subordinate to yours, Mr Wilk. It is that starting point—the first stage of the enquiry—that is a relevant factor in sentencing you because I must consider the principle of parity.8 I will therefore have regard…

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 Lukasik

Details

AGLC: R v Lukasik [2021] NZHC 1494
Case: [2021] NZHC 1494
Decision Date: 22 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Patryk Lukasik and Ryszard Wilk faced sentencing after being found guilty of charges related to the importation of cocaine into New Zealand. Wilk was convicted on multiple charges, including importing cocaine, conspiracy to import cocaine, supplying cocaine, and possessing cocaine for supply. Lukasik was convicted of importing cocaine and money laundering. The maximum penalties for these charges could result in life imprisonment. The court adopted a two-stage process in sentencing, beginning with setting an appropriate starting point based on the aggravating and mitigating features of the offending. This was then adjusted based on personal circumstances. The court considered the need for deterrence, holding the defendants accountable for the harm to the community, and the prospects of rehabilitation. Both defendants were to be deported upon release, and therefore reintegration was not a concern. The court adopted starting points of twelve years and six months for Wilk and eleven years for Lukasik, taking into account the quantity of drugs involved and their respective roles. After considering personal mitigating factors, the court reduced Wilk's sentence to ten years and seven months and Lukasik's to nine years and one month. The court also imposed minimum periods of imprisonment of forty per cent, finding that the default term was insufficient to achieve the purposes of general deterrence, denunciation, and the promotion of accountability.

Orders