Legal Research
Cases
R v Navarro

R v Navarro

Case [2021] NZHC 593 19 March 2021

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Remorse

Cultural Background

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-2019-004-6965

[2021] NZHC 593

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL EUGENIO NAVARRO

Hearing: 19 March 2021

Appearances:

J T Parry & A J A Gee for Crown M W Ryan for Defendant

Sentence:

19 March 2021

SENTENCE OF PAUL DAVISON J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v NAVARRO [2021] NZHC 593 [19 March 2021]

[1] Michael Eugenio Navarro at age 27 years and having earlier pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine, for supply, you appear before the Court this morning for sentencing.1 Your offending relates to the 109.6 kilograms of methamphetamine which was found by Police and Customs to be in your possession.

Your offending

[2] You have visited New Zealand three times. You came here in October 2018 and in April and May 2019. In each case you declared that you were here for a short holiday.2 On 29 May 2019, two days before departing New Zealand at the end of your second visit here, you arranged for the windows of a residential unit situated at Chonny Crescent in Manurewa to be tinted. You then departed to return to Australia on 31 May 2019.

[3] On your third visit you arrived in Auckland on a flight from Sydney on 30 June 2019, this being a fortnight after your co-offender, Mr Tran, had also arrived here from Australia. On this occasion when questioned by Customs you told them that you would be in New Zealand for a couple of weeks to visit a sick relative. You were unable to provide that relative’s address or their contact details.

[4] On 22 July 2019 you and Mr Tran travelled together to the Chonny Crescent address in a medium sized truck that Mr Tran had rented some two days previously. Later that same day, Mr Tran drove the rental truck to storage unit premises in Merton Road, St Johns where he went to and accessed a storage unit. The following day Mr Tran picked you up from your accommodation, and later that same day you and he went to a Warehouse store and purchased some high-visibility vests.

[5] The following day 24 July, you and Mr Tran went together to the Bunnings Warehouse store in New Lynn where you purchased items of protective wear and a

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(a). Maximum period of imprisonment: life.
2 Trip 1: arriving on 22 October 2018, declaring you would stay for 18 days — for a holiday, then departing New Zealand for Australia on 7 December 2018. Trip 2: arriving on 4 April 2019, declaring you would stay for one month — for a holiday, then departing New Zealand for Australia on 31 May 2019.

circular saw. You then drove to the Chonny Crescent address where you went inside for about an hour, before departing and travelling to a residential address in Avondale where you and…

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 Navarro

Details

AGLC: R v Navarro [2021] NZHC 593
Case: [2021] NZHC 593
Decision Date: 19 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Navarro was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. Michael Eugenio Navarro pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine for supply. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for Navarro, taking into account various legal issues such as the quantity of drugs involved, the role Navarro played in the drug operation, and the principles of sentencing. The Crown and the Defence both agreed that the starting point for Navarro's sentence should be 21 years imprisonment, considering the quantity of methamphetamine involved and Navarro's role in the drug operation.

The court considered various mitigating and aggravating factors before deciding on the final sentence. The mitigating factors included Navarro's genuine remorse, his lack of a criminal record, his youth, and the fact that he is a foreign national serving a term of imprisonment away from his family and support network. The court granted a discount of 40% for these mitigating factors and Navarro's early guilty plea. The final sentence imposed on Navarro was 12 years and 7 months imprisonment for possession of methamphetamine for supply, with a minimum period of imprisonment set at 50% of the sentence. The court also ordered the forfeiture of $76,550 in cash located during the search of the premises at Avondale.

Orders