R v Paulo - [2020] NZHC 1797

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2019-085-1094

[2020] NZHC 1797

THE QUEEN

v

JEVAN PAULO

Hearing: 23 July 2020

Appearances:

T Bain for the Crown

E A Hall for the Defendant

Judgment:

23 July 2020

SENTENCING OF COOKE J

[1] Mr Paulo you have pleaded guilty to one representative charge of supply of methamphetamine as a party following a sentencing indication.1

[2] In imposing the sentence upon you I will first outline the relevant facts, I will then deal with the starting point for the offence that you have committed, and I will then address whether there should be deductions from that starting point because of circumstances personal to you. Finally I will consider the question of home detention and community detention. Much of the first part of the sentencing will repeat what I said in the sentencing indication.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a), and Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1), maximum penalty life imprisonment.

R v PAULO [2020] NZHC 1797 [23 July 2020]

Factual basis for sentencing

[3] The charge results from two police operations, code-named “Operation Superdry” and “Operation Maddale” targeting the commercial supply of methamphetamine in the Auckland and Wellington regions. Police identified that Mr Kenny McMillan was involved in distributing commercial amounts of methamphetamine in Wellington. Mr McMillan is described in the summary of facts as a career criminal, with an extensive drug dealing criminal history in New Zealand and Australia.

[4] You were an associate of Mr McMillan, and worked for his company. There are three aspects of the offending set out in the summary of facts. The first concerns a series of covert exchanges of quantities of methamphetamine for cash at a private carpark in central Wellington. The second, to which the representative charge relates, involves approximately two kilograms of methamphetamine recovered from a car registered in your name. The third arises from drug materials seized at your address pursuant to a search warrant.

First aspect: Carpark exchanges

[5] The police investigation established that Mr McMillan used a private carpark building in the Wellington CBD to complete multiple drug transactions on a regular basis. Surveillance devices allowed police to observe and monitor the transactions. The transactions involved Mr McMillan’s associates leaving cash in concealed areas which Mr McMillan himself would collect and replace with ounce packages of methamphetamine. On one such occasion on 18 April 2019 police observed an associate of Mr McMillan hiding a package on top of an air conditioning unit. The package contained bundles of $50 and $20 notes. The cash was weighed at 568 grams and estimated to be in the tens of thousands. Later that day you and Mr McMillan entered the carpark. Mr McMillan retrieved the package, showed it to you before you drove off together.

Second aspect: Nissan Tiida seizure

[6] The second aspect involves the particular conduct to which the charge relates. A related police investigation revealed an organised crime…

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 Paulo

Details

AGLC: R v Paulo [2020] NZHC 1797
Case: [2020] NZHC 1797
Decision Date: 23 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, the case of R v Paulo concerns the sentencing of Jevan Paulo, who pleaded guilty to the charge of supplying methamphetamine as a party. The court was required to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering factors such as the quantity of drugs involved, Paulo's role in the drug dealing operation, and his level of culpability. The court also had to assess whether there should be any deductions from the starting point based on circumstances personal to Paulo, such as his addiction, good character, remorse, and guilty plea. Finally, the court needed to decide whether home detention or community detention would be the most appropriate sentence.

The court found that Paulo had a limited role in the drug dealing operation, and his involvement was largely due to his status as the registered owner of the vehicle used in the operation. The court determined that a starting point of three years' imprisonment was appropriate, considering Paulo's role and level of culpability. However, the court granted deductions for Paulo's addiction, good character, remorse, and guilty plea, reducing the starting point to 18 months. The court ultimately decided that home detention would be the most appropriate sentence for Paulo, taking into account his potential for rehabilitation, employment situation, and the support of his partner. The court imposed a sentence of nine months' home detention, with special conditions including drug and alcohol counselling and prohibition of alcohol, controlled drugs, or psychoactive substances, except those prescribed by a health professional.

Orders