R v Naufahu - [2021] NZHC 217

SUPPRESSION ORDERS EXIST: SEE [57]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-004-3382

[2021] NZHC 217

THE QUEEN

v

PASILIKA NAUFAHU

Hearing: 19 February 2021

Appearances:

D G Johnstone and E Palsenbarg for Crown R M Mansfield and H Smith for Defendant

Judgment:

19 February 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v PASILIKA NAUFAHU [2021] NZHC 217 [19 February 2021]

[1] Mr Naufahu, you appear for sentence having been found guilty by a jury on a charge of conspiring to supply the class B controlled drug pseudoephedrine1 as well as two charges of money laundering.2 Shortly before your trial you pleaded guilty to four further charges of money laundering, a charge of participating in an organised criminal group3 and being in unlawful possession of ammunition.4

Factual background

[2] The sentence to be imposed on you rests on two factual bases. First, the agreed summary of facts tendered to the Court when you entered your guilty pleas prior to trial. Secondly, the evidence given at trial on the charges to which you maintained your pleas of not guilty.

Money laundering and participating in an organised criminal group

[3] The charge of participating in an organised criminal group was laid as a result of the fact that over a lengthy period you and others were involved in laundering money derived from criminal activity. As the charge of conspiring to supply pseudoephedrine demonstrates, that activity was most likely to have been dealing in drugs although the Crown could not point definitively to any other such activity.

[4] At all material times you were the President of the Comanchero organisation. Other members of the organised criminal group were also either patched members or associates of that organisation. You combined your various talents to become involved in laundering money derived from criminal activity, most likely the sale of drugs.

[5] You steadfastly deny you were involved in drug dealing activities, but the jury’s verdict makes it clear you were involved in the purchase of pseudoephedrine for the purposes of supply on at least one occasion. I also consider your conviction on that charge provides useful insight into the modus operandi of your organisation as a whole. It demonstrates that to some extent you were involved in drug dealing activity

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and (2A)(b). The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 243(2). The maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment.
3      Section 98A. The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.
4      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1). The maximum penalty is four years imprisonment and/or $5,000 fine.

that you conducted from a distance using intermediaries and agents to minimise the risk of the offending being detected. In my view there is no other realistic reason why you and other members of the group would ultimately be the persons who stood to benefit from the proceeds of drug dealing activity. I have…

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 Naufahu

Details

AGLC: R v Naufahu [2021] NZHC 217
Case: [2021] NZHC 217
Decision Date: 19 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court is a sentencing hearing for Pasilika Naufahu, who was found guilty of conspiring to supply the controlled drug pseudoephedrine, multiple charges of money laundering, participating in an organised criminal group, and unlawful possession of ammunition. The court heard the facts of the case, which involved Naufahu's involvement in laundering money derived from criminal activity, most likely drug dealing, and his acquisition of luxury vehicles and a residential property using laundered funds. The court also heard evidence of Naufahu's involvement in a conspiracy to supply a large quantity of pseudoephedrine for on-supply to others. The legal issues before the court were to determine appropriate starting points and sentences for each of the charges, taking into account factors such as culpability, guilty pleas, and mitigating factors. The court considered the starting points for each charge and applied reductions for guilty pleas where appropriate. The court also considered mitigating factors such as Naufahu's difficult background and family circumstances. The final sentences imposed by the court were ten years imprisonment for participating in an organised criminal group, various terms of imprisonment for the money laundering charges, six years imprisonment for conspiring to supply pseudoephedrine, and two months imprisonment for being in unlawful possession of ammunition. All sentences were to be served concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of ten years imprisonment. The court also made an order for the destruction of the imitation pistol and ammunition found at Naufahu's address. The case highlights the serious nature of organised criminal activity and the significant sentences that can be imposed for such offences.

Orders