R v Mangu - [2016] NZHC 1104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2014-088-003309 [2016] NZHC 1104

THE QUEEN

v

ANTHONY HONE MANGU

Hearing: 24 May 2016

Appearances:

Michael Smith for the Crown
Arthur Fairley for the Defendant

Judgment:

24 May 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v MANGU [2016] NZHC 1104 [24 May 2016]

Introduction

[1] Anthony Hone Mangu, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to 10 charges which relate to your participation in a drug manufacturing and dealing syndicate.

[2] Initially you faced a number of other charges arising out of these events. However, no doubt in recognition of the principle of totality and the entry of pleas of guilty, the Crown has elected not to offer evidence on the other charges and, accordingly, in terms of s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 those charges are dismissed.

[3] Let me say from the outset that it is inevitable you will be sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment today. The law dictates that there can be no other outcome and this is accepted by you through Mr Fairley who in advance of today’s hearing filed extensive and comprehensive written submissions on your behalf which he has added to orally this morning.

[4] Furthermore, because sentencing is an important public function it must be conducted openly. This means I am required to set out the relevant facts and apply those to the law that governs your case. This necessarily means I will be discussing facts which are well known to you. I will also be discussing relevant legal principles which I am sure will also have been explained to you by Mr Fairley.

[5] When it comes to the formal imposition of sentence I shall ask you to stand. I shall tell you when but in the meantime you may remain seated.

Background facts

[6] In July 2014, the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand (OFCANZ) commenced an investigation into the activities of an organised criminal group made up of patched members of the Head Hunters Motor Cycle Gang and others (“the Group”). This operation was codenamed, “Taskforce Easter”.

[7] The Group was founded with one purpose in mind: to manufacture and sell large quantities of the class A controlled drug methamphetamine. The Crown’s case is that sitting at the apex of this Group was Brownie Joseph Harding (“Mr Harding”).

[8] You were a manufacturer of methamphetamine, otherwise known as a “cook”. According to the Crown, you operated under Mr Harding’s superintendence and in accordance with his instructions. I shall describe your role in more detail later. But in addition to the manufacturing of the drug, you were also involved in its distribution as the charges reflect.

[9] The manufacturing operation took place inside a rented residential address at Waiotira, a remote rural location situated approximately 30 kms southwest of Whangarei. The drugs you produced were then sold throughout the Auckland and Northland regions.

[10] The evidence shows there were six distinct manufactures which were conducted…

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 Mangu

Details

AGLC: R v Mangu [2016] NZHC 1104
Case: [2016] NZHC 1104
Decision Date: 24 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mangu, Anthony Hone Mangu pleaded guilty to ten charges related to his participation in a drug manufacturing and dealing syndicate. The syndicate, consisting of patched members of the Head Hunters Motor Cycle Gang, was involved in manufacturing and selling large quantities of methamphetamine. Mangu was a methamphetamine manufacturer and distributor under the supervision of Brownie Joseph Harding. The syndicate operated from a rented residential address at Waiotira, where six distinct methamphetamine manufactures were conducted between September and December 2014. The total quantity of methamphetamine produced was 7245 grams, with the last three manufactures yielding 2545, 1900, and 2800 grams, respectively. The methamphetamine produced was of high quality, with one batch testing at 73% purity.

The court was required to decide on the appropriate starting point for Mangu's sentence, considering his role in the syndicate, his level of culpability, and the quantity of methamphetamine involved. The court also needed to determine the appropriate discount for Mangu's guilty plea and his personal circumstances, including his criminal history and drug addiction. The court further needed to decide on the minimum period of imprisonment before Mangu would be eligible for parole, taking into account the seriousness of the offending and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court determined that Mangu's offending fell within the highest sentencing band for methamphetamine manufacturing, requiring a starting point between 13 years and life imprisonment. The court considered that Mangu was not the principal cook but played a significant role in three of the six manufactures, with a more extensive involvement in the last manufacture, which yielded 2.8 kgs of methamphetamine. The court found that Mangu's level of culpability, while significant, did not equate to that of the more senior cook, Jaydean Hura, and set a starting point of 20 years' imprisonment. The court also considered Mangu's personal circumstances, including his troubled upbringing, drug addiction, and acceptance of responsibility for his offending. However, the court found that in major drug cases like this, personal circumstances could count for little, and therefore, only a five percent discount was appropriate. The court further ordered a minimum period of imprisonment of 50%, meaning Mangu would serve at least seven and a half years before becoming eligible for parole.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Mangu to 15 years' imprisonment for the three charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, four years' imprisonment for the five charges of offering to supply methamphetamine, two years' imprisonment for the charge of conspiring to supply methamphetamine, and four years' imprisonment for the charge of participating in an organised criminal group. Each term of imprisonment was to be served concurrently, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 50%.

Orders