Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau
McVeagh Fleming, Auckland
A Maxwell-Scott, Barrister, Auckland
Sam Wimsett, Barrister, Auckland
Belinda Sellars, Barrister, Auckland

R v PIAHANA & MATTHEWS [2017] NZHC 2763 [10 November 2017]

Introduction

[1] Queenie Matthews and Meinata Piahana you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to charges of methamphetamine importation.

Background

[2] Together with others you were involved in importing methamphetamine into New Zealand through the international mail system. The offending took place between September 2015 and September 2016. It came to light through a joint undercover operation undertaken by the New Zealand Police and New Zealand Customs, codenamed Operation Cossack.

[3] Adrian Le’Ca has admitted he was the organiser of the importations. He has pleaded guilty to charges of methamphetamine importation and possession of class A controlled drugs for supply. He is to be sentenced at a later date. I was the Judge due to sentence him today and therefore I had the opportunity of reading something about him, as well as about yourselves. He is the brother of Ms Matthews and the uncle of Mr Piahana. Mr Uputaua, a friend of Mr Le’Ca, also assisted in the importations and was sentenced separately in September 2017.1 His offending was far more serious than yours. Given the previous good character of you both I consider that your offending is the direct result of your familial connection with Mr Le’Ca. Were it not for that connection I am sure that neither of you would be before the Court for sentence today and the Crown acknowledges that. I also see your offending as separate from and at a less serious level than that of Mr Uputaua. I see your offending as at the very bottom of this drug operation.

[4] You both reside at 5 Gypsy Moth Place, Papakura, which is the address

Mr Le’Ca listed as his address on his return from Thailand, where he had lived for six years. He is alleged to have gang connections. I understand he has been out of New Zealand for approximately 15 years. He had arrived back in New Zealand in
September 2015, shortly before the offending began.

1 R v Uputaua [2017] NZHC 2320.

[5] On 16 October 2017, you both pleaded guilty to various charges. They are summarised in the table attached as an appendix to these sentencing notes.

[6] On 6 October 2016 Police executed a search warrant at 5 Gypsy Moth Place and located empty shoe boxes with sticky notes referencing large amounts of cash.

Purposes and principles of sentencing

[7] Both of you were part of a commercial enterprise to import significant quantities of methamphetamine into New Zealand. It…

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 Piahana

Details

AGLC: R v Piahana [2017] NZHC 2763
Case: [2017] NZHC 2763
Decision Date: 10 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Queenie Matthews and Meinata Piahana were sentenced for methamphetamine importation, a part of a larger operation led by Adrian Le'Ca, Matthews' son and Piahana's brother. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for each defendant, taking into account their level of culpability, personal circumstances, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also had to consider the benefits of home detention over imprisonment in these cases. For Matthews, the court set a starting point of four years' imprisonment, taking into account her limited involvement, state of mind, vulnerability, and the attempted nature of the offence. The court then applied personal mitigating factors such as her health issues, remorse, good character, and guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of 11 months' home detention. For Piahana, the court set a starting point of three and a half years' imprisonment, considering his limited involvement and role as a "catcher". Personal mitigating factors such as his good character, remorse, and guilty plea led to a final sentence of 11 months' home detention. The court took a special approach in sentencing both defendants, considering the unique circumstances of the case, the influence of Le'Ca, and the benefits of home detention over imprisonment.

Orders