R v Parao - [2016] NZHC 1105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2014-088-003309 [2016] NZHC 1105

THE QUEEN

v

WIREMU HAUA PARAO PARAO STEPHANIE MOIRA SAMUELS

Hearing: 24 May 2016

Appearances:

Michael Smith for the Crown Wiremu Puriri for Mr Parao Sumudu Thode for Ms Samuels

Judgment:

24 May 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v PARAO & ANOR [2016] NZHC 1105 [24 May 2016]

Introduction

[1] Wiremu Parao and Stephanie Samuels, you each appear this morning for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of participating in an organised criminal group. The maximum penalty for that offence is 10 years’ imprisonment.1

[2] Although I have given each of you a sentence indication, which you have accepted, it is still necessary for me to approach the task of sentencing afresh. This is because sentencing is an important public function. It must be conducted in an open way so that the community is better able to understand the reasons a particular sentence is handed down. It is also important that the sentencing process be undertaken publicly because criminal offending affects the whole of our community and the community deserves to have access to the process.

[3] This means that although the facts are well known to you and you have agreed to the contents of the Police summary, I must, nevertheless, repeat these matters for the reasons I have already given.

Facts

[4] Your offending was discovered as a result of a Police operation codenamed “Taskforce Easter”. Taskforce Easter was a large scale Police investigation which focused on the activities of an organised criminal group (“the Group”) made up of patched members of the Head Hunters Gang and others.

[5] Between 23 September and 16 December 2014 the Group was involved in the manufacture and distribution of the class A controlled drug methamphetamine. The manufacturing took place in a rented house in a remote location 30 kms southwest of Whangarei. The drug was then distributed across the Auckland and Northland regions. It is plain from the summary of facts that this was a highly sophisticated operation which resulted in the production and sale of very large quantities of the
drug.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.

[6] The Crown’s case is that the Group was led by Brownie Harding (“Mr Harding”). It was Mr Harding who organised the manufacture of the methamphetamine. He also directed and controlled its distribution as well as the management of the very significant sums of money which this enterprise generated.

[7] The Crown’s case is that the two of you operated as custodians of significant sums of money which were generated by the Group’s activities. You did this on behalf of Mr Harding. In that way, the Crown says, you participated in the Group, ensuring the profits of the illegal activities were preserved and secured.

[8] The money was kept at a house in Whangarei. This was the house in which you both lived with your children. The summary makes it clear that both of you exercised a…

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 Parao

Details

AGLC: R v Parao [2016] NZHC 1105
Case: [2016] NZHC 1105
Decision Date: 24 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Wiremu Parao and Stephanie Samuels were sentenced for their involvement in an organised criminal group engaged in the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. The group was led by Brownie Harding and operated across Auckland and Northland regions. Both Parao and Samuels pleaded guilty to participating in the group by managing and storing profits generated from drug sales. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence considering the nature of the crime, the level of involvement of each defendant, and their personal circumstances.

The legal issues the court needed to decide included the appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offending, and the mitigating factors such as the defendants' personal circumstances and their pleas of guilty. The court had to balance the need to hold the defendants accountable and deter future offending against the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation.

The court concluded that Parao's involvement, while significant, was at a lower level compared to Harding, and he played a role in managing and concealing the drug profits. The court assessed the appropriate starting point for Parao at two years and three months' imprisonment. However, after applying a 20% discount for his guilty plea, the sentence was reduced to 20 months. Given Parao's stable personal and professional life, the court imposed a sentence of home detention for 10 months. Similarly, Samuels' culpability was assessed marginally lower than Parao's due to her lesser direct involvement in managing the funds. Her sentence was set at 19 months, reduced to nine months of home detention considering her care for her children and employment.

The final orders of the court were that Wiremu Parao was sentenced to 10 months' home detention and Stephanie Samuels to nine months' home detention, both to be served at their residence in Whangarei, subject to special conditions as outlined in their respective Pre-Sentence Reports.

Orders