R v Lum - [2015] NZHC 629

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2013-088-1724 [2015] NZHC 629

THE QUEEN

v

RONALD ALLEN LUM and
CHRISTOPHER RAMOND NGAWATI

Hearing: 31 March 2015

Appearances:

M Smith for the Crown
C Muston for Mr Lum
D Blaikie for Mr Ngawati

Sentencing:

31 March 2015

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors:
Mr M Smith, Marsden Woods Inskip & Smith, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
Mr C Muston, Solicitor, Whangarei
Mr D J Blaikie, Solicitor, Kaikohe

R v LUM and NGAWATI [2015] NZHC 629 [31 March 2015]

[1] I will now impose sentence and explain the sentence to be imposed. I have already indicated that it will not be imprisonment. I do want to say at the outset – and I will explain the reasons I come to this – what I am doing with both of you is giving both of you an opportunity. Mr Lum, you are aged 51, I think it is; and Mr Ngawati, you are aged 38 or 39. Although there is 12 years between you, this is a pretty pivotal point in the lives of both of you. And I am giving both of you an opportunity with the sentence that will be imposed, which I will now explain.

[2] You are to be sentenced for supplying the precursor substance toluene over a period in January and February 2013. The maximum penalty for this offence is 7 years imprisonment.

[3] Mr Lum, you are also to be sentenced for theft of a camera and surveillance equipment with a value estimated – in legal terms – in excess of $1,000. The actual estimate is just over $8,000. The maximum penalty is also 7 years imprisonment.

[4] The essential facts, in relation to the toluene charge, are that you, Mr Ngawati, agreed to obtain some toluene for Matthew Alcock. Mr Alcock is also to be sentenced, but on a separate date. You in turn asked Mr Lum to obtain the toluene which he agreed to do.

[5] There is dispute about the quantity of toluene. The Crown contended that toluene was supplied on three separate occasions and that the total was 160 litres.

[6] Mr Ngawati, you say that the total you supplied was 40 litres.

[7] Mr Lum, you signed a police summary of facts as being true and correct and say that you did this on the basis that you accepted that you had supplied no more than 100 litres of toluene, and I apprehend that was because there is reference, more than once, to a total of 60 and then to a separate total of 40. The written submission was that, on reflection, you contended you supplied no more than 60 litres.

[8] There was to be a disputed facts hearing on this. It was discussed in a constructive way, in particular with Mr Smith, at the outset of this hearing this

morning and then with your respective counsel. I indicated that I did not consider that for the purposes of sentencing…

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 Lum

Details

AGLC: R v Lum [2015] NZHC 629
Case: [2015] NZHC 629
Decision Date: 31 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lum, the defendants Ronald Allen Lum and Christopher Ramond Ngawati were sentenced for their involvement in the supply of a precursor substance, toluene, and for theft of police surveillance equipment. The case was heard by Justice Woodhouse in the High Court of New Zealand, Whangarei Registry. The primary legal issue was determining an appropriate sentence for the defendants, taking into account the nature and seriousness of the offences, as well as personal factors and mitigating circumstances.

Justice Woodhouse established a starting point for the sentence of 18 months imprisonment, acknowledging that the defendants acted as low-level intermediaries in the supply of toluene. The court considered various sentencing cases to determine an appropriate starting point, taking into account the substance involved, the quantity supplied, and the value. For Ronald Lum, additional factors such as his guilty plea and time spent on restrictive bail conditions were taken into account. Justice Woodhouse decided on a sentence of 6 months community detention, 6 months supervision, 20 hours of community work, and an order for reparation in the sum of $4,000. Christopher Ngawati received a similar sentence, with the exception of the community work and reparation order.

The court's reasoning focused on the need to provide the defendants with an opportunity for rehabilitation and to prevent further offending. The judge emphasised the importance of family support and personal motivation for the defendants to stay out of trouble and lead law-abiding lives. In delivering the sentence, Justice Woodhouse highlighted the importance of giving the defendants a chance to turn their lives around, while also upholding the purposes and principles of sentencing, including denunciation and deterrence.

Orders