R v Moke - [2013] NZHC 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2011-043-2338 [2013] NZHC 2018

THE QUEEN

v

NALEESHA ANGELICA MOKE

Hearing: 9 August 2013

Counsel: C E Clarke for Crown
P J Mooney for Prisoner

Sentence: 9 August 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] Ms Moke, you have been convicted by a jury of the following offences:

a) conspiracy to supply class C ecstasy;1 and

b) conspiracy to supply class C cannabis plant.2

[2] You also pleaded guilty to offering to supply methamphetamine.3

[3] As in the case of your co-offenders this morning, Ms Moke, I am going to tell you immediately where you stand. You are not going to prison. You will serve
eight months’ home detention.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and s 6(2A)(c).
2      Sections 6(1)(e) and 6(2A)(c).
3      Section 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a)

R v MOKE [2013] NZHC 2018 [9 August 2013]

Facts

[1] You are 25 years old. You are currently employed as a housekeeper and receptionist at a local hotel.

[2] The charges against you arose out of Operation Puff, an investigation into the sale and supply of controlled drugs in the New Plymouth area between May and September 2011. Part of that investigation focused on the activities of the New Plymouth chapter of the Rebels motorcycle gang. You have no association with that gang. But you did with its Sergeant at Arms, Nathan Couper.

[3] You were identified in the operation through recorded conversations, text communication and surveillance. You were in regular contact with your co- offenders, Mr Couper and Mr James. At that time, Mr Couper was a senior patched Rebels Gang member.

[4] Between 12 July and 27 July 2011 you and Mr Couper communicated in person, over the phone and via text message to organise the sale and supply of illicit drugs.

Offering to supply class A methamphetamine

[5] On 12 July 2011 Mr James contacted you using Mr Couper’s phone. You were asked to source half a gram of methamphetamine. You replied, specifying the price of the amount to be paid up front. The drug was not actually supplied. Mr Mooney submits that you had neither the intention nor the ability to actually supply methamphetamine. That may be so, but intent to participate in supply is an essential element of the charge. And you pleaded guilty to that charge ahead of trial.

Conspiracy to supply class C ecstasy

[6] Between 12 and 26 July 2011 you conducted a series of communications with Mr James and Mr Couper regarding the sale of 500 ecstasy tablets. There was a dispute over the cost of samples which Mr Couper and Mr James required in order to validate the authenticity of the tablets. Between 21 July and 26 July you contacted

Mr Couper to inform him that you had the tablets available for him to purchase. A text on 26 July suggests that you had actually supplied ecstasy to Mr Couper. Just how much is unclear.

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 Moke

Details

AGLC: R v Moke [2013] NZHC 2018
Case: [2013] NZHC 2018
Decision Date: 9 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Naleesha Angelica Moke was convicted of conspiracy to supply class C ecstasy and class C cannabis plant, and pleaded guilty to offering to supply methamphetamine. The court accepted that the lead charge for sentencing purposes was conspiracy to supply class C ecstasy. The court determined a starting point of 19 months for the lead offence, and an uplift of three months for the other offending, resulting in a total of one year and ten months imprisonment. The court considered mitigating factors such as the defendant's motivation to address the causes of her offending, her remorse, and her efforts to address her drug addiction. The court determined that a reduction of 15 per cent for remorse and tangible rehabilitation was appropriate, bringing the sentence to one year and six months’ imprisonment. The court sentenced the defendant to eight months’ home detention, with conditions including electronic monitoring, no contact with co-offenders, and mandatory drug testing.

The court's reasoning was based on the purposes and principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restitution. The court noted that the defendant had a history of drug-related convictions but had taken steps to address her drug addiction and had obtained regular employment. The court was satisfied that the sentence of home detention would meet the purposes of sentencing and enable the defendant to continue in employment, which was most likely to secure her rehabilitation. The court emphasised that home detention was not a soft option and that breach of conditions was likely to result in revocation and imprisonment for the balance of the sentence. The court also noted that the term of home detention was approximately half the equivalent prison sentence. The court concluded that the sentence of eight months’ home detention, with the specified conditions, was appropriate and would provide the defendant with a significant chance to turn her life around.

Orders