R v Mako - [2013] NZHC 2314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2012-088-002233 [2013] NZHC 2314

THE QUEEN

v

PETER MAKO

Hearing: 6 September 2013

Appearances: D B Stevens for Crown
C Muston for Prisoner

Judgment: 6 September 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF ELLIS J

R v MAKO [2013] NZHC 2314 [6 September 2013]

Introduction

[1] Peter Mako, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to six counts of selling cannabis1 and two counts of possessing cannabis for sale.2 I now convict you on those charges. The maximum penalty that can be imposed for each of those offences is eight years’ imprisonment.

Facts

[2] Your offending was uncovered as a part of Operation Dan, where between November 2011 and June 2012 special duties constables visited various addresses in the Northland Police district and attempted to purchase quantities of controlled drugs.

[3] On 9 May 2012, one such officer went to the house you share with your partner, Josie Paniora, in Dargaville. The officer found you and someone else in the dining room drinking beer. He asked if he could “score” and then bought a single tinny from you for $20.

[4] On 23 May 2012, the same officer returned to that address and you sold him another tinny for $20.

[5] On 30 May 2012, the officer returned again. He asked you if there was any “smoke”. You told him it was in a white van and that he could “grab it” if he wanted. The officer opened the door of the van and took a tinny from the glovebox, and paid you $20 for it.

[6] On 6 June 2012, there was another visit by the same officer. You and Ms Paniora invited him in. Ms Paniora left the room and returned holding three tinnies which she handed to you. You then sold one tinny to the officer for $20 and
she sold another one to someone else.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(e). The maximum penalty is eight years’ imprisonment.
2 Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(f). The maximum penalty is eight years’ imprisonment.

[7] When the officer returned again on 19 June 2012, you were not home so he sent you a text. You replied, telling him to go to a different address. The officer drove to this address where you and others were drinking heavily. You handed him a container with eight tinnies in it. He chose one and paid you $20.

[8] When the Police questioned you, you admitted to selling cannabis and said you made between $100 – $150 a week. You said at that time that you did it for financial reasons as times were tough.

[9] I mention at this point that following these events Ms Paniora last year also pleaded guilty to three counts of supplying cannabis, one charge of selling cannabis and one charge of possession. The Judge in the District Court took a starting point of
16 months in prison but in the end she was sentenced to four-and-a-half months’…

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 Mako

Details

AGLC: R v Mako [2013] NZHC 2314
Case: [2013] NZHC 2314
Decision Date: 6 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Peter Mako, Peter Mako was convicted and sentenced on six counts of selling cannabis and two counts of possessing cannabis for sale. The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the commercial element of Mako's drug dealing activities and his extensive criminal history. The court also examined Mako's personal background, including his difficult childhood and current struggles with alcohol and drug addiction.

The legal issues in this case involved determining the appropriate sentence for Mako, taking into account the relevant purposes and principles of sentencing. The court had to balance the need to condemn the offending and protect society from drug-related harm with the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court also considered the impact of Mako's participation in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program, although he did not complete the program.

The court ultimately decided on a sentence of nine months home detention, with several conditions, including abstaining from alcohol and illegal drugs, undergoing treatment for addiction, and participating in an alcohol and drug program. The court chose home detention instead of imprisonment, believing it offered Mako a chance for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court also took into account Mako's early guilty plea and his expressed willingness to change his life.

The final orders of the court were for Peter Mako to serve nine months of home detention, with specific conditions, and to pay a fine of $946.45, which was written off due to his imprisonment. The sentences for selling cannabis and possessing cannabis for sale were to run concurrently, with an effective sentence of nine months home detention.

Orders