Legal Research
Cases
R v Paora

R v Paora

Case [2020] NZHC 1595 28 May 2020

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Mens Rea & Intention

Unlawful Possession of a Firearm

Participation in an Organised Criminal Group

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF DETAILS OF TRAUMATIC EVENTS EXPEREINCED BY DEFENDANT WHILE AN ADOLESCENT AS

DESCRIBED IN REPORT PRESENTED TO COURT PURSUANT TO S 27 OF THE SENTENCING ACT 2002 EXCEPT AS DIRECTED IN PARAGAPH [3] OF JUDGMENT. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST

PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2016-070-5102

[2020] NZHC 1595

THE QUEEN

v

STACY WALTON DENNIS PAORA

Hearing: 28 May 2020

Appearances:

A Pollett and J Sutton for the Crown R Mansfield for the Defendant

Sentence:

28 May 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Pollett Legal, Tauranga
R Mansfield, Barrister, Auckland

R v PAORA [2020] NZHC 1595 [28 May 2020]

Introduction

[1] Mr Paora, you may remain seated and I will ask you to stand when I get to the end.

[2]You appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to 18 charges. These are:

(a)one charge of participating in an organised criminal group, which has a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment;1

(b)one charge of conspiring to deal in ephedrine, which also has a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment;2

(c)eleven charges of supplying methamphetamine, including both representative charges and charges relating to specific offending, which charges have a maximum penalty of life imprisonment;3

(d)four charges of possessing methamphetamine for supply, which charges also have a maximum penalty of life imprisonment;4 and

(e)one charge of unlawfully possessing a pistol, which carries a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment or a $4,000 fine.5

[3] Because members of the media are present today, I note at the outset I am making an order prohibiting publication of the details of the personal trauma Mr Paora experienced while he was an adolescent. Any report of these proceedings is to refer to those events simply as abuse from a relative.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2A)(b).
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and (2); and Crimes Act 1961, ss 66(1) and (2).
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and (2); and Crimes Act 1961, ss 66(1) and (2).
5      Arms Act 1983, s 50(1)(a).

Facts

[4] I turn to talk about the facts. In 2015 the Police commenced an investigation into the Head Hunter gang and the gang’s role in supplying methamphetamine in the Bay of Plenty.

[5] You have accepted in pleading guilty, Mr Paora, that you are a high-ranking member of a Head Hunter chapter based in Auckland. Telecommunications intercepted by the Police during their investigation between May 2015 and December 2016, known as Operation Centurion, demonstrated you had a significant leadership role in the gang’s business. You were involved, amongst other things, in identifying suitable prospects for the gang, enforcing discipline amongst existing members, and matching various gang members’ abilities to the gang’s operations. You are recorded as having spoken positively about prospective members’ ability to terrorise others when required. You thought this would increase the dread with which the Head Hunters…

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 Paora

Details

AGLC: R v Paora [2020] NZHC 1595
Case: [2020] NZHC 1595
Decision Date: 28 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stacy Walton Dennis Paora appeared for sentencing having pleaded guilty to 18 charges, including participating in an organised criminal group, conspiring to deal in ephedrine, and supplying and possessing methamphetamine. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence considering the gravity of the offending, the offender’s personal circumstances, and the principles and purposes of sentencing. The court found that Paora's methamphetamine offending, which involved over 2.6 kilograms of the drug, fell within the middle range of band five in Zhang, and adopted a starting point of 17 years' imprisonment. The court also uplifted the starting point by nine months in respect of the firearm offending. After applying discounts for personal circumstances, time spent on restrictive bail conditions, and guilty pleas, the court imposed a sentence of 12 years and one month’s imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years. The court also ordered the destruction of the pistol and dismissed two charges against Paora.

Orders