R v Page - [2017] NZHC 2180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2017-404-169 [2017] NZHC 2180

THE QUEEN

v

FRANCEE EDWIN REWITI PAGE

Hearing: 8 September 2017

Appearances:

TJ McGuigan for Crown
M Pecotic for Defendant

Judgment:

8 September 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v Page [2017] NZHC 2180 [8 September 2017]

Introduction

[1] Francee Edwin Rewiti Page: you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of supplying methamphetamine1 and one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.2 The amount of methamphetamine either possessed or supplied is agreed to be 196 grams, or seven ounces.

Facts

[2] In August 2005 the Organised and Financial Crime Agency New Zealand commenced a covert electronic enquiry into the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine and other controlled drugs; codenamed Operation Bunk.

[3] During the course of the enquiry, surveillance device warrants were issued for the interception of the private communications of Mr Gerrard Parkes and Ms Toni Nikora. A covert video camera was installed at the front of Ms Nikora’s address to record visitors entering her home, and covert audio equipment was installed within Nikora’s home. Between November 2015 and 3 February 2016 there was an extensive police surveillance undertaken of Ms Nikora’s address.

[4] The Crown case against Mr Parkes and Ms Nikora was that Mr Parkes was supplying Ms Nikora with commercial quantities of methamphetamine, which she then supplied to others on numerous occasions.

[5] On 13 December 2015, at around 4.53pm, conversations involving

Ms Nikora and you were intercepted from within Ms Nikora’s apartment.

[6] In a conversation with a third party you referred to altering the state of methamphetamine you had, which is acknowledged to have been a total of seven ounces which you had acquired from some source. There was then a conversation indicating that Ms Nikora immediately took possession of two ounces, which I am told was immediately onsold, and you received about $10,000 cash from
that.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c); maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
2 Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(f); maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

[7] You then spent a considerable time undertaking an exercise which you described as “cleaning” the remaining five ounces of the methamphetamine which you had not given to Ms Nikora. It is suggested at that point that Ms Nikora retained three ounces and you took two ounces away with you; but you acknowledged, in fact, that what you had done by the process was to deplete or reduce the quality of the methamphetamine so that it was not saleable. The other three ounces was later returned to you, meaning that you had in your possession five ounces. There is no evidence that you sold it and Ms Pecotic emphasises, and you say in your letter to me, that in fact you retained it for personal use. You were found in possession of a small quantity, under three grams, at the time of your arrest in March 2016.

[8] The basis upon which I am to…

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 Page

Details

AGLC: R v Page [2017] NZHC 2180
Case: [2017] NZHC 2180
Decision Date: 8 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Francee Edwin Rewiti Page, the defendant pleaded guilty to charges of supplying and possessing methamphetamine for supply. The quantity of methamphetamine involved was 196 grams, or seven ounces. The case originated from an investigation by the Organised and Financial Crime Agency New Zealand, codenamed Operation Bunk, which involved extensive surveillance of a residence and the interception of private communications. The defendant's involvement was in supplying and altering the state of methamphetamine, which he then received a significant sum of money from. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account the nature of the offending, the defendant's role, his personal circumstances, and the timing of his guilty plea.

The legal issues before the court included determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the defendant's role and the commerciality of the offending, and assessing the discount for the defendant's guilty plea. The court considered previous cases involving similar quantities and roles, and balanced these against the defendant's personal circumstances, including his age, addiction, and efforts towards rehabilitation. The court also took into account the defendant's late plea and the extensive preparatory work required for the case.

After considering all the factors, the court determined that a starting point of six years and six months' imprisonment was appropriate. The court further reduced the sentence by three months to recognise the defendant's efforts towards rehabilitation and his expressed intention to reconnect with his iwi. The guilty plea discount was assessed at 12 months, bringing the final sentence to five years and three months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently on each charge. The court emphasized the need for the defendant to address his addiction and make positive contributions to his community upon release.

Orders