Legal Research
Cases
R v Namoa

R v Namoa

Case [2022] NZHC 3025 18 November 2022

Sentencing

Youth

Rehabilitative Prospects

Previous Good Character

Guilty Plea

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2020-004-9587

[2022] NZHC 3025

THE KING

v

LEMEKI NAMOA

Hearing: 18 November 2022

Appearances:

B Kirkpatrick for the Crown

T Cooper KC for the defendant

Date:

18 November 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF CAMPBELL J

R v NAMOA [2022] NZHC 3025 [18 November 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Namoa, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply,1 and a charge of possession of methamphetamine.2

[2] My job today, on behalf of the community, is to impose a sentence on you for those offences.

Offending

[3] I will start by outlining your offending. This outline is based on the summary of facts which you accepted when you pleaded guilty.

[4] You were an associate of the Comancheros Motorcycle Club. In early 2020 you were dealing drugs at the behest of Seiana Fakaosilea, who was the national commander of the Comancheros. On 15 January 2020, you and an associate arranged by text message to meet and break down a kilogram of methamphetamine into halves. You discussed the packaging method and location at which to do this. You went to the location and were in joint possession of that kilogram of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply. Your actions were under the direction of Mr Fakaosilea and others higher in the drug syndicate.

[5] In December 2020, Police searched the home of one of your associates. They located six plastic containers, holding 15 g of methamphetamine residue. The containers had previously been bound with brown tape. Your fingerprints were on the tape.

[6] Police also searched your home. They found almost $20,000 cash in your possession.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and 2(a). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
2 Section 7(1)(a) and 2. Maximum penalty: six months’ imprisonment or a $1,000 fine.

Approach to sentencing

[7] The Sentencing Act 2002 sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing that I have to follow. Here, relevant purposes include holding you accountable for the harm that your offending has done to the community, promoting in you a sense of responsibility for that harm, denouncing your conduct, deterring you and others from committing similar offending, and assisting in your rehabilitation.3

[8] The principles include the need to consider the gravity of your offending and your degree of culpability, the seriousness of these offences and the general desirability for consistency in sentencing. I must also impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.4

[9] Determining the appropriate sentence involves two steps. First, I must determine a term of imprisonment as what is called the “starting point” for your sentence, which will be based on the seriousness of the offending to which you have pleaded guilty. Secondly, I will consider your personal circumstances, including the appropriate allowance for your guilty plea.5 This will produce your end sentence.

Starting point

[10] A Court of Appeal case called Zhang is…

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 Namoa

Details

AGLC: R v Namoa [2022] NZHC 3025
Case: [2022] NZHC 3025
Decision Date: 18 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. Lemeki Namoa was sentenced for possession of methamphetamine for supply and possession of methamphetamine. The court considered his involvement with the Comancheros Motorcycle Club and his possession of a kilogram of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply under the direction of the national commander. The court also reviewed evidence of six plastic containers with methamphetamine residue found in his associate's home and $20,000 in cash found in his possession. The court followed the Sentencing Act 2002, which sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing, including holding the offender accountable, promoting a sense of responsibility, denouncing the conduct, deterring similar offending, and assisting in the offender's rehabilitation.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included the appropriate sentencing band based on the quantity of methamphetamine involved, the offender's role in the offending, and the adjustments required for the offender's personal circumstances, youth, rehabilitative prospects, previous good character, and guilty plea. The court adopted a starting point of five years' imprisonment, considering the offender's role as lesser and the cases of similar offenders who received lower starting points. The court then adjusted the starting point based on the offender's personal circumstances, youth, rehabilitative prospects, previous good character, and guilty plea, resulting in a 60% credit. The final sentence was 12 months' home detention to be served concurrently for both charges. The court hoped that Mr. Namoa would live up to the promise he had shown and that his family and supporters would continue to support him.

Orders