R v Paul - [2021] NZHC 1627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-3685

[2021] NZHC 1627

THE QUEEN

v

HEEMI HAMUERA PAUL

Hearing: 2 July 2021

Appearances:

K Whyte for Crown

D Niven for Defendant

Judgment:

2 July 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

R v PAUL [2021] NZHC 1627 [2 July 2021]

[1] Mr Paul, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to two representative charges of manufacturing methamphetamine and one charge of offering to supply methamphetamine. The maximum sentence for all charges is life imprisonment.

[2] The Crown has offered no evidence on the other two charges that you face,1 and I now discharge you on those charges under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

The charges

[3] The charges were laid following the termination of a police operation known as Operation Kingsville. This targeted the suspected manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine in the Waikato region between 2017 and 2020.

[4] The summary of facts on which you are to be sentenced records that you were present during the manufacture of methamphetamine on at least two occasions at two different addresses. You were involved in the offending under the direct supervision of Mr Ray Tyler-Waugh, one of the senior figures in a network exposed by the police investigation. On one occasion you acted as the assistant to another co-defendant, Mr Peter Henderson. He directed you to perform various tasks during the manufacturing process. He also instructed you to clean up during and after that process.

[5] The police are unable to identify how much methamphetamine was produced on the occasions when you were present. The Crown accepts, however, that you played a subsidiary role in the manufacturing process. You were there to do the bidding of those responsible for overseeing the manufacture on each occasion. You performed what might be described as menial tasks and there is no suggestion you have the requisite knowledge to enable you to manufacture methamphetamine yourself. You were well down the hierarchy of persons in the network.

1 Charges 34 and 46.

[6] The charge of offering to supply methamphetamine relates to a single occasion and no quantity has been able to be identified.

Starting point

[7] Counsel agree that the starting point to be selected for your offending falls within Band 2 of Zhang v R.2 In that case the Court of Appeal identified starting points for sentences involving Class A drug-related offending and methamphetamine in particular. Band 2 relates to the manufacture or supply of less than 250 grams of methamphetamine and calls for a starting point of between two and nine years imprisonment.

[8] Mr Niven argues for a starting point of three years imprisonment given the very limited nature of your role. Mr Whyte, for the Crown, suggests a starting point of three years six months is appropriate.

[9] I consider that a starting point at the bottom of the range suggested by both counsel is…

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 Paul

Details

AGLC: R v Paul [2021] NZHC 1627
Case: [2021] NZHC 1627
Decision Date: 2 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Paul involved the sentencing of Heemi Hamuera Paul, who pleaded guilty to charges of manufacturing and offering to supply methamphetamine. The court discharged Paul on two other charges related to the same investigation. The charges stemmed from a police operation targeting methamphetamine manufacture and distribution in the Waikato region. Paul was found to have played a subsidiary role in the manufacturing process, performing menial tasks under supervision. The starting point for sentencing was determined to be three years imprisonment, with adjustments made for aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors included Paul’s criminal history and his role in the methamphetamine network. Mitigating factors included his guilty pleas and his participation in a drug rehabilitation program.

The court carefully considered the appropriate sentence, taking into account the nature of Paul's involvement in the crime and his efforts towards rehabilitation. The court decided on a sentence of six months home detention, to be served at Odyssey House, where Paul was already participating in a rehabilitation program. The reduction from seven months to six months was intended to incentivize Paul to continue his rehabilitation efforts. The court also noted that Paul's co-defendant, Mr. Simpson, was residing at Odyssey House, and lifted a condition prohibiting contact with co-defendants given that Paul had already been sentenced.

This case highlights the court's approach to sentencing individuals involved in drug-related offences, emphasizing both the seriousness of the crimes and the potential for rehabilitation. The sentence reflects a balance between punishment and the opportunity for the defendant to address underlying issues contributing to their criminal behaviour.

Orders