R v Naupoto - [2012] NZHC 3138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2011-004-15420 [2012] NZHC 3138

THE QUEEN

v

ANGUS NAUPOTO

Hearing: 23 November 2012

Counsel: D G Johnstone for Crown
N T Tupou for Prisoner

Judgment: 23 November 2012

SENTENCE OF KATZ J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland - david.johnstone@meredithconnell.co.nz

Copy to: N T Tupou, Auckland - ntupou.lawyer@xtra.co.nz

R V NAUPOTO HC AK CRI-2011-004-15420 [23 November 2012]

[1] Mr Naupoto, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty on 17

October 2012 to a charge of conspiring to import the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine. The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years imprisonment.

[2] Your guilty plea follows a sentence indication of two years seven months imprisonment which was given on 5 October 2012. However your counsel has submitted that a modest further reduction of the sentence previously indicated is justified, based on new information or matters that were not fully argued at the time of the original sentence indication.

The facts

[3] The factual background to your offending is highly unusual. In essence, it appears that you and your co-offenders were duped by other criminals in Tonga.

[4] In around June 2011, associates of yours in Tonga convinced you that they had a stockpile of approximately 400 kilograms of methamphetamine, which was being held in Nuku’alofa, Tonga. You negotiated with these associates to act as their agent by going to New Zealand to facilitate the importation of the methamphetamine and its onwards distribution.

[5] In July 2011 you arrived in New Zealand and made arrangements with various people to assist in the importation and subsequent distribution of the methamphetamine. While purchasers were being found, your associates in Tonga convinced you that a “sample” of 20 kilograms of methamphetamine was being transported by boat from Tonga to New Zealand. That boat was being skippered by a person known only to you as “Johann.”

[6] In order to ensure that “Johann” would deliver the methamphetamine, one of your New Zealand associates provided the sum of approximately $10,000 cash to cover his costs. You remitted this money overseas to your associates in Tonga. Your Tongan associates advised that they were holding the skipper’s wife against her will as security, in order to ensure the 20 kilogram sample was delivered to you safely.

[7] You endeavoured to meet the boat carrying the 20 kg sample, firstly in Opua Harbour in the Bay of Islands and subsequently in Gulf Harbour, Auckland. During this period you were in regular contact with your associates in Tonga and also on occasion with the supposedly kidnapped wife of the skipper, who was acting as a go- between, between you and her husband. As time passed you became increasingly angry about the non-arrival of the shipment. You told the skipper’s wife that if she did not tell you where “Johann” was you would return to Tonga and kill her yourself.

[8] At that point the New Zealand Police, who were intercepting some of your communications, naturally became somewhat alarmed. They…

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 Naupoto

Details

AGLC: R v Naupoto [2012] NZHC 3138
Case: [2012] NZHC 3138
Decision Date: 23 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Mr. Naupoto, appeared before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing after pleading guilty to conspiring to import Class A controlled drug methamphetamine. The maximum penalty for this offence was 14 years imprisonment. The case involved Mr. Naupoto being deceived by his associates in Tonga who convinced him that they had a stockpile of 400 kilograms of methamphetamine to be transported to New Zealand. Mr. Naupoto agreed to act as their agent to facilitate the importation and distribution of the methamphetamine. However, the drugs and the supposed boat skipper did not exist, and the whole operation was a scam designed to extract money from Mr. Naupoto and his co-offenders.

The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for Mr. Naupoto, taking into account his culpability, the mitigating factors, and the deterrent effect of sentencing in cases involving the importation of methamphetamine. The court assessed Mr. Naupoto's culpability based on his willingness to participate in the conspiracy and his active steps to plan the importation of a large consignment of methamphetamine. The court also considered mitigating factors such as Mr. Naupoto's previously unblemished record, his good character, remorse, and restrictive bail conditions. After weighing all the factors, the court sentenced Mr. Naupoto to 2 years and 4 months imprisonment.

The court emphasised the importance of imposing deterrent penalties for methamphetamine importation offences and the need to publicly denounce drug offending. However, it also recognised that Mr. Naupoto was duped and that the drugs did not actually exist. The court took these factors into account when determining the appropriate sentence. The final sentence imposed balanced the need for deterrence with the mitigating factors present in this unusual case.

Orders