R v Namana - [2019] NZHC 826

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF CO-DEFENDANTS UNTIL THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2017-035-001360

[2019] NZHC 826

THE QUEEN

v

MEREPEKA MOANA NAMANA

Counsel: D T E Moore for Crown C J Tennet for Defendant

Sentence:

15 April 2019

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1]Ms Namana, you are to be sentenced in relation to the following charges:

(1)one charge of participating in an organised criminal group;1

(2)one charge of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine;2

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 98A; maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
2 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2A)(a); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

R v NAMANA [2019] NZHC 826 [15 April 2019]

(3)one representative charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply;3

(4)one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply;4

(5)one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine;5

(6)three charges of supplying methamphetamine;6 and

(7)two charges of money laundering.7

[2]This morning I will:

(1)set out your offending;

(2)outline the appropriate starting point for that offending;

(3)explain any adjustments that I can make to that starting point

(4)address whether a sentence of home detention would be suitable; and

(5)give your final sentence.

Summary of offending

[3] The charges result from a police operation code-named “Operation Sweden” which commenced in February 2017. That investigation targeted the commercial supply of methamphetamine in the Wairarapa area, and in particular, the suspected dealing network of the Namana family, of which you are of course a member.

[4] The operation commenced with analysis of cell phone data obtained from the phones used by three members of your family, which indicated that they might be

3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
4      Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(a); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
5      Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(a); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
6      Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(a); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
7      Crimes Act 1961, s 243(2); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

involved in the supply of methamphetamine. A surveillance device warrant was later obtained in November 2017, to allow police to intercept private communications of those three members of your family. It became evident from those intercepted communications that you were also involved in the family’s drug dealing activities. A further surveillance device warrant was then obtained to allow police to intercept your private communications.

[5] You and the other three co-defendants from your family are alleged to have worked independently, but co-operatively as a group, to supply methamphetamine. This organisation is described in the agreed summary of facts as a “family business” with the common objective of obtaining financial reward for the family group. By operating as a family group, it is alleged that you were able to minimise the risk of your activities being detected by police, and you were also able to live a comfortable lifestyle without having to do legitimate work.

[6] Mr Wayne Namana is said to have been the “patriarch”…

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 Namana

Details

AGLC: R v Namana [2019] NZHC 826
Case: [2019] NZHC 826
Decision Date: 15 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Namana, the defendant, Merepeka Moana Namana, was sentenced for her involvement in a family-run methamphetamine supply operation in the Wairarapa area. The operation, code-named "Operation Sweden," targeted the suspected dealing network of the Namana family, of which Ms Namana was a member. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, making any adjustments to that starting point, and deciding whether a sentence of home detention would be suitable. The court also had to address the defendant's outstanding fines and enforcement costs.

The court found that the defendant's role in the operation was that of an assistant, primarily dealing with the financial aspects of the operation and preparing the drugs for on-supply. The court considered her low relative culpability in setting the starting point for sentencing. Based on the defendant's minor role in the operation and the limited scale of her involvement in the principal offending, the court determined that a starting point of three and a half years' imprisonment would be appropriate for the methamphetamine charges. The court took into account personal mitigating factors, such as the defendant's young age, lack of previous convictions, and potential for rehabilitation, in adjusting the starting point. The court also considered the defendant's guilty plea, which resulted in a 25 per cent discount.

In light of the circumstances, the court decided that a sentence of home detention would be appropriate for Ms Namana. This sentence would allow her to continue to care for her child and hopefully to continue her current employment, while also recognising her rehabilitative potential and the low likelihood of her reoffending. The court also cancelled her outstanding fines and enforcement costs, substituting a sentence of 40 hours of community work. All sentences were to be served concurrently.

The court made an order prohibiting the publication of the names, addresses, or identifying particulars of co-defendants until the final disposition of the trial.

Orders