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 significant degree of control over these funds as the following sequence reveals.

[9]      On 13 November 2014, Mr Harding called you, Mr Parao, and asked you to bring “that money over” on your lunch break.  You responded, “All of it?” to which Mr Harding said, “Yes”.   You later confirmed to the Police that you were talking about $50,000 in cash.

[10]     Then, on 17 November 2014, Mr Harding asked his partner, Ms Green, how much money was at your house.  After Ms Green replied, Mr Harding told her that approximately $10,000 was missing.  Ms Green agreed to go over to your property to check.  She later called back and confirmed that all the funds were accounted for and that your “… brain was confused”.

[11]     On 27 November 2014, Ms Green went to your property and collected a bag containing $39,000.  Shortly afterwards, you, Ms Samuels, called Mr Harding.  You told him that Ms Green had just got the bag and you asked him whether there was in fact only $39,000 in it.  Mr Harding confirmed this to which you replied, “that bitch” had confused you.

[12]     On 16 December 2014, the Police arrived at your home.  When they showed you the search warrant, you, Ms Samuels, said, “I know why you are here now.

We’ve been hanging out with the wrong people.”  You then went on to say that you assumed the money was from drugs and  that Brownie was a Head Hunter and “… we all know what they get up to.”  You confirmed that your partner had come home about a month earlier with a black bag containing $80,000 which he had been given by Mr Harding.  You said you did not look into the bag or discuss the money with Mr Parao. You said that Mr Parao had always controlled the money and he had kept it in the gun-safe at your home for which only he had the key. You claimed that whenever Mr  Harding  rang  about  the  money,  you  would  give the  telephone to Mr Parao  or take a message for him.  You  confirmed  you  witnessed  Ms  Green arriving to collect some of the money on occasions. You also admitted you had sent Mr Harding a text message asking for a “hook up” or a gift of $1,000.  Mr Harding apparently declined your request.

[13]     In your interview with the Police, Mr Parao, you initially denied storing any money for Mr Harding.   But after you were shown a transcript of the telephone conversation you had with him on 13 November 2014, you admitted your involvement.  You said Mr Harding had given you the money and you had stored it at your home.  You insisted Mr Harding had not told you anything about the source of the funds but you accepted you had “probably heard the stories” that Mr Harding was involved in the supply of methamphetamine.   When pressured further,  you responded that you “did not want to know”.   You were asked about a black Ford Falcon car registered in your name.  You admitted you had got it from Mr Harding “on lend” and that you had had it for two to three weeks in October 2014.  You said Mr Harding asked for it back and arranged its collection.

Purposes and principles of sentencing

[14]     When  offending relates  to  drug dealing on a commercial  scale the most important purposes of sentencing are to hold the defendant accountable, to denounce their conduct and to deter them and others from engaging in similar behaviour.  The relevant principles of sentencing are the need to take into account the gravity and seriousness of the offending and maintain consistency with appropriate sentencing levels.   I accept this is counterbalanced by the need to impose the least restrictive outcome appropriate.

Wiremu Parao

[15]     Mr Parao, I turn to you first.  You are 33 years old.  You and Ms Samuels have been in a relationship for 14 years and you have two children together.  You have been employed as an automotive mechanic with the same garage for sixteen years.  You have been successful in that role.   In fact, your employer says that he regards you as so hard working and reliable that he views you as part of his family and has even contemplated the possibility of having you take over the business after he retires.   You have a small number of historic convictions, but these are for unrelated matters.   I think it would be fair to describe  your involvement in the present offending as something of an aberration.

[16]     The Crown submits the most aggravating factor in your case is the nature of the organised group which you were involved in.   It was a sophisticated gang-led operation which manufactured methamphetamine for distribution in what only can be described as on a massive scale.   The evidence reveals that each of the six manufacturing runs undertaken by the Group yielded quantities of methamphetamine measured in kilograms.

[17]     The Crown submits you were effectively “an assistant” to Mr Harding.  The assistance you provided was by storing some of the Group’s profits so they could be concealed, preserved and accessed as and when required.   Further, the evidence makes it plain that your involvement went beyond simply providing services as a custodian. You counted the money and you managed it.  The Crown submits that the inference to be drawn is that you knew or, at the very least, were supremely wilfully blind as to the source of the funds.  The Crown also points out the registering of the black Ford Falcon in your name was a deliberate device knowingly undertaken by you to conceal one of Mr Harding’s assets.

[18]     The  Crown  suggests  that  taking  into  account  all  these  circumstances  a starting point of between two and a half and three years’ imprisonment would be appropriate in your case.

[19]     In determining an appropriate starting point, I have been assisted by a number of cases. 2

[20]     Mr Parao, whether or not you knew the precise origins of the funds you were asked to look after, you were certainly wilfully blind to the likelihood they were linked to the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine.   Your admissions to the Police underscore that.  You were aware, if only from third parties, that the funds must have been sourced from drug dealing.   From that it follows that you were a willing and knowing participant in the Group.

[21]     However, I do not put your participation as high as being “an assistant” to Mr Harding; certainly not in the same sense that the defendant in Green provided extensive assistance and support to her mother.  Furthermore, you are not culpable as a party to the offending by Mr Harding or others.  The assistance you provided was limited in the sense that you were one of a number of people who Mr Harding made use of to facilitate the success of his large-scale operation. Along with Ms Samuels, you operated as a custodian although I accept, to some extent, you also managed the money which Mr Harding entrusted to you.  You also permitted one of Mr Harding’s vehicles to be registered in your name so that the true identity of its owner would be concealed.

[22]     Although  these actions  provided assistance to  the Group  by allowing  its profits to be preserved and secured, I consider your involvement was, nevertheless, at the lower rungs.

[23]     In the circumstances I assess the appropriate starting point as being one of

two years and three months’ imprisonment.

[24]     I have come to the conclusion there are no mitigating factors personal to you. Mr Puriri submits you should be given credit for your remorse.  I have little doubt you are remorseful and this morning I have been given a letter written by you in which you express that remorse.  Given the nature of the offending I am not satisfied that this is a case which justifies granting a discrete discount for remorse beyond that

which is implicit in your plea of guilty.  Neither does the Crown seek an uplift based on your previous convictions.  That is a proper course given those convictions are more than a decade old and are completely unrelated to the present charges.

[25]     As I advised you when I gave you your sentence indication, I am willing to apply a 20 per cent discount to reflect your guilty plea.   This brings  your end sentence down to 20 months’ imprisonment and allows me to consider imposing a sentence of home detention rather than imprisonment.3

Home detention

[26]   The Probation Officer who prepared the PAC report recommends home detention.  He notes you have a stable life, both vocationally and personally.  You have lived at your current address for six years.  The Probation Service assesses it as suitable for home detention and the Police have no concerns.   Your partner also consents although this is hardly surprising given that she is also seeking a sentence of home detention at the same address.  You have been made aware of the conditions which would attach to this sentence and I am advised you consent to them.

[27]     Mr Parao, I am willing to impose a sentence of home detention in your case. I consider this should be for period of 10 months.   You are clearly a man who contributes in a positive way to society.  You have earned the respect and support of your employer.   It would appear that you are a devoted family man.   The public gallery in this Court attests to the fact that you are supported and much loved.  I am prepared to accept that your offending represents an uncharacteristic blip in an otherwise positive life.   It was an act of naïve stupidity which led you to become enmeshed in this huge operation which was centred around the manufacture and peddling of a pernicious and extremely destructive substance.   I hope you have learned a salutary lesson which will, after you have served your sentence, permit you to return to the positive life you and Ms Samuels shared before you got mixed up in this dreadful business.

[28]     Please stand.

[29]     On the charge of participating in an organised criminal group I sentence you to home detention for a period of 10 months.  This sentence is to be served at the residence situated at 38 Fairburn Street, Raumanga, Whangarei.   Immediately following the imposition of sentence you are to go to that address and await the arrival of the Field Officer and/or Probation Officer.   I can advise you that post detention conditions may apply.

[30]     I also impose the recommended special conditions for home detention as set out in your PAC report dated 12 May 2016.

[31]     Stand down.

Stephanie Samuels

[32]     Ms Samuels, I now turn to consider your position. You are 34 years old. You have the care of the two children you share with Mr Parao.  You have a full-time job at a butcher’s shop in Whangarei.  As with your partner, you are well regarded by your employer who describes you as able and reliable. A past employer has provided a letter to  the Court  which essentially says  the same thing.   You  do  have one conviction for driving with excess breath alcohol in 2009.  But otherwise you appear to have led a blame-free life.

[33]     The  aggravating  factors  in  your  case  are  much  the  same  as  those  of Mr Parao’s. As he did, you were willing to become involved. You knew, even if you did not care to admit it, what Mr Harding was up to and where the money came from.  Your assistance in storing money on Mr Harding’s behalf helped the Group to continue its activities undetected.  The Crown says that because you and Mr Parao are equally culpable the starting point for each of you should be the same; that is two years and three months’ imprisonment.

[34]     Mrs Thode, on your behalf, argues your culpability is lower than that of Mr Parao.  She submits Mr Parao was the person to whom the cash was actually given.  He was the person who transported it.  He was the one who had the key to the

locked gun safe in which it was kept.  Mrs Thode suggests that for these reasons a lower starting point in the region of 21 to 24 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.

[35]     Ms Samuels, the same cases which I referred to in respect of your partner also apply to you.  However, the proper approach in your case is for me to assess your culpability against his.  There is not a great deal of difference between you. The summary of facts makes it plain you were well aware of the origins of the money and you played an active role in managing the money from the point at which it was brought into your house.  By your own admission, you were home when Ms Green came to check on it.  The real difference between you and your partner is that it was Mr Parao who brought the money into the house and transported it on at least one occasion at Mr Harding’s request.  The other difference is, of course, Mr Parao’s involvement with Mr Harding’s car.

[36]     For these reasons I assess your culpability to be marginally lower than your partner’s.   For this reason I adopt a starting point of two years and one month’s imprisonment.

[37]     It is appropriate I discount your sentence by one month in recognition of your personal circumstances.  You have the full-time care of your two children, you are a valued employee with very positive references to your name and as with Mr Parao, I am prepared to apply a discount of 20 per cent to reflect your guilty plea.

[38]     This brings your end sentence down to 19 months’ imprisonment.

[39]     Because this sentence is below two years I am required to look at alternative sentences.  Mrs Thode submits the PAC report is strongly supportive of community detention. On the other hand the Crown submits the proper sentence is home detention.    Mrs Thode maintains that community detention is appropriate because your  current  job  requires  you  to  make deliveries  during work  hours  which  she submits might not be approved by Corrections in the event you were sentenced to home detention.  Mrs Thode advised me this requires you to undertake deliveries in the morning and in the afternoon and that no one else in the business can cover this for a variety of reasons which she listed.  While one might hope Probation Services

to be sympathetic and realistic in relation to these issues that, of course, is a matter for them and I must be careful not to intrude into what is properly their domain. And while I am sympathetic to your need to provide for your young family, I do not consider a sentence of community detention is appropriate or reflects the nature of your offending.  A more restrictive sentence is required to reflect this seriousness. Despite your limited role this was a very significant commercial drug syndicate and sight must not be lost of that.  You were involved although I accept involved at the margins.

[40]     However, I am prepared to impose a sentence of home detention.  I consider this should be for a period of nine months.  Several factors persuade me this is the correct  approach.   The first  is  this is the sentence  which  the Probation  Officer recommends.  The address is assessed is suitable and there are no objections from either you or Mr Parao to serving out your sentences at your home.  Secondly, as in Mr Parao’s case, I am satisfied your current offending was out of character.   You allowed your good judgement to be compromised. You allowed yourself to be drawn into Mr Harding’s dangerous web.  But for that you have otherwise demonstrated the capacity to live a stable and productive life.   I have no interest in doing anything other than allowing that to continue.

[41]     Ms Samuels, please stand.

[42]     On the charge of participating in an organised criminal group, I sentence you to nine months’ home detention.  That sentence is to be served at 38 Fairburn Street, Raumanga, Whangarei.  As with Mr Parao, immediately following sentence you are to go to that address and await the arrival of the Field Officer and/or Probation Officer.

[43]     I also impose the recommended special conditions contained in the PAC

report dated 12 May 2016.

[44]     Stand down.

Moore J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

Mr Puriri, Whangarei

Ms Thode, Auckland