R v Piukana
[2025] NZHC 66
•4 February 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2021-004-7913
[2025] NZHC 66
THE KING v
MATANGIKOLO PIUKANA
Hearing: 4 February 2025 Counsel:
M Nathan and R van Boheemen for Crown E Priest and S Wood for Defendant
Sentenced:
4 February 2025
SENTENCING NOTES OF WILKINSON-SMITH J
Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland E Priest, Auckland
R v PIUKANA [2025] NZHC 66 [4 February 2025]
Introduction
[1] Mr Piukana, you appear for sentence today for your role in the commercial importation of methamphetamine into New Zealand.
[2] You pleaded guilty to one representative charge of importing methamphetamine,1 and one representative charge of conspiracy to import methamphetamine for supply.2
The offending
[3] In June 2021, the New Zealand Police commenced a joint investigation with the New Zealand Customs service (Operation Selena). Operation Selena arose after previous joint investigations identified a number of syndicates involved in the importation of drugs, mostly methamphetamine, including two syndicates operating out of Auckland International Airport (the Airport).
[4] One of these syndicates was directed by Nigel Iuvale — a patched member of the King Cobra gang and a co-offender in this offending.
[5] You have no gang connections, but you and Mr Iuvale were friends having played on the same rugby league team. Mr Iuvale knew that you worked for Air New Zealand as a Service Delivery Leader and throughout 2021 you received instructions from him relating to the importation of methamphetamine on board Malaysian Airlines flight MH145 and Air New Zealand flight NZ5. You worked at the domestic terminal of the Airport and were responsible for assigning baggage handling staff to particular flights.
[6] Malaysian Airlines flight MH145 was serviced by Menzies Aviation (Menzies), not Air New Zealand. You instructed Tungane Manuel, a baggage handler from Menzies to retrieve consignments of methamphetamine from MH145 flights. Mr Manuel then facilitated the handover of the importations to other members of the syndicate via an Airport security checkpoint — Checkpoint Charlie.
1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(a) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
2 Section 6(2A). Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
[7] On multiple occasions in 2021, at the direction of Mr Iuvale, you organised a crew of baggage handlers to physically remove shipments of methamphetamine from recently arrived aircraft. These drugs were subsequently driven off Airport grounds and on‑supplied to other members of the syndicate at the direction of Mr Iuvale.
[8] You stored the proceeds of the syndicate’s operation in the form of large amounts of cash at your sister and brother-in-law’s home address.
Importation charges
[9] Sometime in May or June 2021, Mr Iuvale organised the importation of a commercial quantity of methamphetamine from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Once the import was confirmed, you arranged for members of the syndicate to set up offloading the consignment once it landed at the Airport. You spoke to a co-offender, Martin Pritchard, on 5 June 2021. Three days later, on 8 June 2021, Mr Pritchard messaged you asking for further information about the upcoming import. Mr Pritchard arranged his shifts at the Airport so that he was working on the day of the importation.
[10] On 8 June 2021, three boxes containing methamphetamine were loaded onto Malaysian Airlines flight MH145 headed for Auckland. The consignee of the boxes was PB Technology, 587 Great South Road, Manukau, Auckland.
[11] On 9 June 2021 at 11.54 am, you messaged Mr Pritchard confirming that the methamphetamine was aboard an incoming flight. Despite not being rostered to work that day, you told Mr Pritchard that you would be coming into the Airport to print your flight details for an upcoming personal trip. At midday, Mr Pritchard made two short calls to Mr Manuel, who was also working at the Airport that day. Between 1.13 pm and 1.35 pm, you exchanged messages with Mr Pritchard, each relaying your current locations at the Airport. Those locations were important because Mr Manuel, as the Menzies employee, had to be involved in ensuring that the packages could be handed to you, an Air New Zealand employee.
[12] Flight MH145 landed at the Airport at 1.37 pm. The boxes containing the methamphetamine were then offloaded and distributed.
[13] Sometime in June 2021, Mr Iuvale organised an importation of methamphetamine from Los Angeles, United States.
[14] On 4 July 2021, you exchanged messages with Mr Pritchard about the upcoming importation. You advised Mr Pritchard that the date of the importation had changed and that it would likely occur on 6 or 7 July 2021. You exchanged similar messages on 10 July 2021, when you confirmed that the importation was scheduled for 12 July and that you were meeting with Mr Iuvale later that day to discuss the import. On 11 July 2021 between 4.08 pm and 11.26 pm, you and Mr Pritchard messaged confirming that the import was occurring the following day.
[15] On 12 July 2021, you and Mr Pritchard both arrived at the Airport in the early hours of the morning for your shifts. Air New Zealand flight NZ5 arrived at 5.44 am.
[16] Mr Pritchard retrieved a bag from the aircraft containing at least 10 kilograms of methamphetamine. He messaged you at 6.07 am confirming that he was in possession of the methamphetamine and asked you “where shall I drop it”. Mr Pritchard then liaised with another co-offender, Mairiau Samson, to arrange the handover of the methamphetamine. Location data placed Mr Samson in the vicinity of the Airport.
[17] In late July, Mr Iuvale arranged for a large shipment of methamphetamine from Malaysia. On 30 July 2021, three boxes containing methamphetamine were again loaded onto Malaysian Airlines flight MH145 destined for Auckland. The consignee this time had a different name.
[18] On the morning of 31 July 2021, you called Mr Pritchard and Mr Manuel on multiple occasions about the impending methamphetamine importation. At the time of the importation, you were on holiday in Queenstown but during this time you passed on messages relating to the import.
[19] At 5.36 am, Mr Pritchard drove his personal vehicle to the “Park and Ride” area in Māngere close to the Airport before heading to the domestic side of the Airport
— where he was rostered to work.
[20] Flight MH145 arrived at the Airport at 1.50 pm. Minutes before it landed, Mr Pritchard drove an Air New Zealand van from the domestic side of the Airport, through Checkpoint Charlie to the international side of the Airport, eventually parking near the hold of the aircraft.
[21] At 2.04 pm, Mr Pritchard received the three boxes containing methamphetamine from baggage handlers including Mr Manuel, who was unloading the aircraft. Mr Pritchard loaded the boxes into the Air New Zealand van before driving the van to the “Park and Ride” area where he placed the boxes in his personal vehicle. He then returned the van to the domestic side of the Airport before returning to his personal vehicle and departing with the three boxes of methamphetamine in his possession.
[22] The quantum of methamphetamine imported by the syndicate across the operation I conservatively determined to be at least 100 kilograms of methamphetamine.3
Conspiracy charges
[23] On 19 January 2021, you exchanged messages with another co-offender, your younger brother Kimela Piukana, regarding a “test run” in advance of an upcoming planned methamphetamine importation. The plan was to do a “dry run” of an empty duffle bag to ensure that it would arrive in New Zealand. This indicates your involvement at a relatively early stage of the operation and that involvement continued through to the end stage.
[24] On 22 January 2021 at 9.23 pm, you instructed your brother to ask the person sending the test bag to send a photo of the bag to ensure that it had a fake tag on it and to message once the plane had taken off. This message was relayed by your brother to the account “L1nkag3” on the encrypted messaging platform “Wickr”. The account L1nkag3 has been attributed to Mr Iuvale. The following day, Mr Iuvale sent a picture of the bag tag to your younger brother, Mr Kimela Piukana. The bag tag read “TESTBAG/TEST” and showed the origin of the bag as Los Angeles, California.
3 R v Pritchard [2024] NZHC 3090 at [75].
[25] On 4 February 2021 at 5.53 am, your brother told you “Uso those guys haven’t sent a photo yet can you go through it and check to see if they put it on! It’s a small carryon black bag with wheels! Similar to the captains! It should have the note on it!”. You told your brother “Nah tell him to message on the other chat” referring to Wickr. You obviously were concerned to ensure that your communications were encrypted. Mr Kimela Piukana replied “Not sure if the bro has been bopped but I know the bag was delivered to his people 2 days before departure”.
[26] On 24 February 2021, you received a message from Mr Pritchard saying “all good”. You responded “cancel tomorrow I’ll explain my uso” and told Mr Pritchard that the bag had been sent to Australia.
[27] Sometime in May 2021, Mr Iuvale arranged the importation of a commercial quantity of methamphetamine into the Airport from Malaysia on flight MH145.
[28] Between 15 and 18 May 2021, you exchanged messages with Mr Samson, Mr Kimela Piukana and another co-offender, Mr Toroma, regarding an upcoming import. You told Mr Samson to expect “big coin” when the methamphetamine arrived. On 18 May 2021, you advised Mr Toroma and Mr Kimela Piukana that the importation was cancelled and would arrive the next day instead. When the importation did not go ahead on 19 May 2021, Mr Pritchard messaged you saying “today would have been perfect”.
[29] On 17 September 2021, Mr Iuvale was granted electronically monitored bail following his arrest for his involvement in similar commercial methamphetamine importation via the Ports of Auckland — uncovered in Operation Schrute. Mr Iuvale was subject to a 24-hour curfew but had a special condition permitting him to go grocery shopping.
[30] On 22 September 2021, you called one of Mr Iuvale’s brothers, Glenn Iuvale, asking for Mr Iuvale and his brother Tony Iuvale’s contact numbers. Your number was passed on to the brothers. Four days later, you met with Mr Iuvale at a Gilmours supermarket to discuss the upcoming importation of methamphetamine.
[31] On 8 October 2021, you contacted Mr Pritchard and discussed the circumstances surrounding Mr Pritchard leaving his role at Air New Zealand. He told you that he had left Air New Zealand to ensure that the syndicate’s previous methamphetamine importation could not be uncovered by Air New Zealand. You promised Mr Pritchard that he would still receive a “cut” of the syndicate’s future methamphetamine imports. You said “I’m already planning on big, big like big, you know. I gotcha. I gotcha on that one”.
[32] On 10 October 2021, you again met with Mr Iuvale at a Gilmours supermarket to discuss the importation of methamphetamine. You shopped with Mr Iuvale for 45 minutes before leaving in separate vehicles. You then called Mr Manuel almost immediately and arranged to meet the following day.
[33] On 19 and 21 October 2021, you summoned three co-offenders to your address to discuss the upcoming importation. On 19 October 2021, you also confirmed with Mr Manuel that the upcoming Saturday was a “green light” confirming that the methamphetamine importation would proceed. Mr Manuel confirmed that flight MH145 would arrive on Saturday and said that it would normally arrive between 1 to 2 pm.
[34] On 22 October 2021, three boxes containing methamphetamine were loaded onto flight MH145 bound for the Airport. These boxes were intercepted in Malaysia. Unaware of this seizure, you and Mr Iuvale continued to plan for the upcoming import.
[35] On 23 October 2021, you, Mr Kimela Piukana, Mr Manuel and another co‑offender, Mr Paulo-Toroma, arrived for your shifts at the Airport. At 6.42 am, Mr Manuel messaged you to inform you that flight MH145 would be parking in the lay over park numbered 82, which is across from gate two. At 10.31, you messaged Mr Manuel to tell him that the importation was cancelled and asked him to call you when he was free. Mere minutes later, when Mr Manuel called you, you told him that the methamphetamine “didn’t make it on”. Mr Manuel confirmed that he was rostered to work on 25 October 2021 — the date of the next planned importation.
[36] On 17 November 2021, a search warrant was carried out at your home address. Multiple bundles of cash totalling $24,430.00 were located.
The principles and purpose of sentencing
[37] In sentencing you, I must have regard to the purposes and principles in the Sentencing Act 2002. Those I consider particularly relevant in each of your circumstances are:4
(a)accountability for harm done to the community — the introduction of commercial quantities of methamphetamine has been recognised to have a corrosive effect on communities.5 The significant commercial quantities of methamphetamine imported by the syndicate would no doubt cause significant harm to the community;
(b)to promote in you a sense of responsibility for that harm;
(c)to denounce the conduct you were involved in; and
(d)to deter others from committing the same offence.
[38] In imposing your sentence, I must take into account your personal, family, whānau, community and cultural background.6 I must also impose the least restrictive sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances and consider any personal circumstances that would render the means of dealing with your offending disproportionately severe.7
[39] Determining the appropriate sentences involves first identifying the “starting point” for your sentence. The starting point is determined by the seriousness of your offending. I will then consider your personal circumstances and whether adjustments to your final sentence are appropriate.
4 Sentencing Act 2002, s 7(1).
5 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648 at [38].
6 Section 8(i).
7 Section 8(g) and (h).
Approach to methamphetamine sentencing
[40] I have had regard to the guideline judgment Zhang v R,8 as updated by the Supreme Court in Berkland v R.9
[41] In Zhang, the Court of Appeal identified five bands of offending based on the quantity of drugs involved in the offending. This is because quantity is a reasonable proxy for the social harm done by the drug and the illicit gains for making, importing and selling it.10 Band five applies to offending where the quantity of methamphetamine exceeds two kilograms, and an appropriate starting point for offending within this band will range from 10 years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment.
[42] Zhang also emphasised that whilst quantity is a valuable metric for assessing culpability, it is not the only relevant factor.11 The role played by the offender is an important factor for determining culpability.12 The profiles established in Zhang categorised offenders’ roles as being either: lesser, significant or leading — these were then further adjusted in Berkland.13
[43] Leaders are those that direct, organise, buy and sell on a commercial scale. They have substantial links to, and influence upon, others in the operation. They have close links to the original source and an expectation of substantial financial gain. Those who played a significant role undertook a management function under the direction of a leader and an operational function. They were motivated solely or primarily by financial advantage; had actual or expected financial advantage; and some awareness and understanding of the scale of the operation. Those that played a lesser role performed a limited function under direction; were engaged by pressure, coercion or intimidation; became involved through naivety or exploitation; are solely or primarily motivated by their own addiction; receive little or no actual or expected financial gain; may be paid in drugs to feed their own addiction or cash that is
8 Zhang v R, above n 5.
9 Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509.
10 Zhang v R, above n 5, at [103].
11 Zhang v R, above n 5Error! Bookmark not defined., at [104].
12 At [118].
13 At [126]; and Berkland v R, above n 9Error! Bookmark not defined., at [71].
significantly disproportionate to the quantity of drugs involved or the level of risk; have no influence on those above in the chain; and little, if any, awareness of the scale of the operation.
Starting point
[44] In determining the starting point, quantity is obviously an important factor. Following a disputed facts hearing last year, I determined that the syndicate’s importations involved at least 100 kilograms of methamphetamine.14 Accordingly, the amount of methamphetamine in your case clearly exceeds the two-kilogram threshold, and likely warrants a starting point significantly in excess of 10 years’ imprisonment, which could be expected for amounts starting at two kilograms. The only dispute in this case concerning your starting point is about what role you played in the operation.
[45] The Crown submits that your role was at the very top end of the significant category and that a global starting point of 26 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. Ms Priest, on your behalf, submits that your role was similar to or lesser than Mr Pritchard’s, and that a global starting point of 19 to 20 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.
[46]In determining your starting point, I have considered the following authorities:
(a)Yu v R:15 a starting point of 22 years’ imprisonment was applied for one charge of importing 110 kilograms of methamphetamine.16 Mr Yu imported the drugs via a shipping container that concealed methamphetamine and pistols. He had been entrusted with arrangements related to the delivery and storage of the methamphetamine. The Court of Appeal found his role to be “at the lower end of significant”.17
14 R v Pritchard, above n 3, at [75].
15 Yu v R [2022] NZCA 382.
16 At [26].
17 At [26].
(b)Cheung v R:18 a starting point of 25 years’ imprisonment was applied for one charge of importing 176 kilograms of methamphetamine.19 Mr Cheung’s role was to assist in the importation and extraction of methamphetamine from shipping containers. The Court held that his role was significant noting that he handled the drugs and could not claim that he was unaware of the quantity. Mr Cheung’s objective was to make money. The Court declined to grant an extension of time for Mr Cheung to appeal the starting point considering that the starting point was in the upper end of the range available under R v Fatu20and further noting that Zhang did not reduce starting points for those that played a significant role in large scale commercial drug dealing.21
(c)Tan v R:22 a starting point of 26 years and six months’ imprisonment was upheld on appeal for one charge of importing methamphetamine and one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.23 The quantity involved in that offending was 157 kilograms of methamphetamine and that the role fell in the upper level of significant. A co‑offender who played a more senior role received a starting point of 30 years’ imprisonment.
[47] The Crown submits that, whilst you were not the mastermind, you can be described as a “senior figure”. The Crown draws a comparison between the quantum of methamphetamine involved in your offending with that in Yu. However, it is submitted that your offending was more serious, given the number of importations and the significant breach of the trust involved because you were an employee of Air New Zealand.
[48] In contrast, Ms Priest submits that your role was merely that of a messenger between Mr Iuvale and the baggage handlers. She describes you as a conduit. Among other matters, she submits that you never had contact with the methamphetamine, you
18 Cheung v R [2021] NZCA 175, [2021] 3 NZLR 259.
19 At [58]–[64].
20 R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA).
21 Cheung v R, above n 18, at [63] and [64].
22 Tan v R [2023] NZCA 446, with respect to Mr Chiu’s appeal.
23 At [121]–[124].
could not have had full knowledge of the scale of the operation, and you were not involved in the wider operational planning. Moreover, she argues that your involvement was motivated, at least in part, by your addiction to methamphetamine, your fear of saying no to Mr Iuvale and your sense of indebtedness to Mr Iuvale and the gang for financially supporting you and your family during your father’s illness and after his passing.
[49] As I have acknowledged in previous sentencings, I must consider parity issues with you and your co-offenders. Your co-offenders were sentenced as follows:
(a)Mr Kimela Piukana: Two years and three months’ starting point on a charge of participating in an organised criminal group. Your brother was a baggage handler, and he was sentenced on the basis that his role was entirely limited to passing messages. He was very much at the lesser end of the role.
(b)Mr Samson: Three years and six months’ starting point. Mr Samson assisted in receiving methamphetamine once removed from the Airport. The amount involved in his offending was 10 kilograms. He also pleaded guilty to participating in an organised criminal group, which carries a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment. He was not charged with importing methamphetamine, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
(c)Mr Toroma: A baggage handler employed by Air New Zealand who was involved in assisting with importations and the October conspiracy but pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of participating in an organised criminal group. Mr Toroma was not involved in an actual importation, it was accepted that the importation he was willing to be involved in did not proceed. The starting point was four years’ imprisonment.
(d)Mr Tualevao: He was responsible for supplying the methamphetamine at the direction of Mr Iuvale on one occasion. That was in respect of
the 10 kilograms. The starting point imposed was 11 years’ imprisonment.
(e)Mr Manuel: A Menzies employee and baggage handler who provided airside assistance. His role was within the higher end of lesser to the lower end of significant. The starting point imposed was 15 years’ imprisonment.
(f)Mr Pritchard: An Air New Zealand employed baggage handler who pleaded guilty to three charges of importing methamphetamine. I considered that Mr Pritchard’s role was beneath yours. The starting point for Mr Pritchard was 20 years’ imprisonment.
(g)Mr Iuvale: A major player in commercial drug dealing, who was the brains and the driver of this offending. He instructed and directed his co-offenders. I considered him to be an organiser and connected to the international side of the organisation. The global starting point for his offending was 23 years’ imprisonment. It is important to note however that Mr Iuvale was charged differently to you and Mr Pritchard. Although he was said by the Crown to be the organiser of importations on 9 June and 31 July and involved in the May conspiracy, and although your summary of facts acknowledges that role, Mr Iuvale was not charged with those importations or the May conspiracy. He was sentenced in respect of a more limited factual picture. As I indicated to your counsel, had he been sentenced on the same factual picture faced by you, in addition with other matters he faced, his starting point would have likely been in the region of 30 years’ imprisonment.
[50] Ms Priest submits that your role was lesser than or equal to the role of Mr Pritchard. She argues that your role as a messenger was replaceable, whereas Mr Pritchard’s access to the international tarmac was key to the success of the operation. She also contends that your financial benefit was much less than Mr Pritchard, noting that only around $20,000 was found at your home and that you
estimated receiving only around $40,000 in total from Mr Iuvale. Ms Priest contrasts this with the $130,000 found at the home of Mr Pritchard.
[51] I consider that you were Mr Iuvale’s key contact at the Airport, and that your position in the hierarchy was directly below Mr Iuvale but above the rest of your co-offenders. I accept that you likely found yourself too involved to easily extract yourself given Mr Iuvale’s gang connections. Mr Iuvale was a driver of this in a way that you were not, but your offending involved a very significant breach of trust. You were in a position as a team leader at Air New Zealand which meant that you were trusted.
[52] The agreed summary of facts upon which you pleaded guilty indicates that you did in fact perform an organisational and managerial role in the operation. The plain wording includes directed and “instructed”. You have accepted that, and I must sentence you on that basis. You received instructions from Mr Iuvale, you organised and arranged a crew of baggage handlers to remove the shipments from the Airport and you stored the proceeds at your sister and brother-in-law’s house. Further, I consider that your messages with your co-offenders reflect that, to some extent, you called the shots on the ground rather than acting as a mere messenger and in saying that I rely entirely on the messages set out in the summary of facts.
[53] This managerial and organisational role suggests that, although you did not directly handle the methamphetamine, you would have known relatively well the scale of the operation. This would be inherent to your role in arranging the offloading of the shipments and would also be informed by your receipt and storage of the cash proceeds. It is also supported by your messages; for example, your statement to Mr Pritchard that you were “already planning on big, big like big, you know”.
[54] I can accept that some of these statements are matters that you may have been told by Mr Iuvale and passed on, and I can accept that there could have been an element of bravado. I do not see your role as anywhere near Mr Iuvale’s. Equally however you were an irreplaceable part of the operation in the way that some of the other co-offenders were not.
[55] I also reject Ms Priest’s contention that your presence at the Airport on 9 June 2021 was solely to print your flight details for an upcoming personal trip. That was your excuse for being at the Airport, but it is inconsistent with the fact that immediately before the flight carrying the shipment landed that day, you and Mr Pritchard exchanged messages relaying your current locations. This suggests, in the circumstances of your other offending, that you were also involved in the shipment that day.
[56] It should also be noted, contrary to Ms Priest’s submissions, that Mr Pritchard’s role was not, in fact, irreplaceable in comparison with the managerial/organisational role you performed. As it happened, Mr Pritchard left the operation and was replaced by Mr Manuel, who also had access to the international tarmac and who you arranged to pick up further importations. Without your role as a team leader or organiser of baggage handlers, it would have been much more difficult for Mr Iuvale to marshal the airside support that was needed.
[57] As emphasised when sentencing your co-offenders, the use of corrupt baggage handlers is an aggravating feature of this offending. You were employed by Air New Zealand throughout your offending — the national carrier. Your offending was therefore an egregious breach of trust. The undermining of the security of New Zealand’s borders and your involvement in corrupting your fellow baggage handlers is a significant aggravating factor of your offending. Accordingly, you played a more significant role than the offenders in some of the cases I referred to as you were responsible for a crew of corrupt baggage handlers and organised several significant importations.
[58] Your younger brother was sentenced on the basis that you involved him in this, and he looked up to you. You dispute your role in involving your younger brother who was a young man of considerable potential with no criminal history. You clearly knew that your brother was involved — he was just a teenager and had been deputy head boy of his school24. You should have been a good example to him and instead you at
24 In fact the younger brother was 20 so just out of his teens.
the very least encouraged and did not dissuade him. It is clear that in respect of the February test bag you were directing and involving him.
[59] I do acknowledge from the materials provided to the Court by Ms Priest that your offending may have been impacted by your addiction to methamphetamine. However, I consider that the cash located at your address, and your statement that you received at least $40,000 from Mr Iuvale, demonstrates that the sheer scale of this operation must have been known to you and that your offending was significantly financially motivated. You knew that there were numerous people involved in this and you knew that there were very significant amounts of cash being passed on to those people.
[60] Weighing the reasons and factors above, I consider you role is appropriately characterised as being at the higher end of significant, but below leading.
[61] The Crown proposes that I set a starting point of 25 years for your importation charges and then uplift that starting point by one year for your conspiracy offending. The Crown proposes a global starting point of 26 years’ imprisonment.
[62] Ms Priest submits that a global starting point of 19 to 20 years’ imprisonment, including the conspiracy offending, is appropriate.
[63] Standing back and considering your role in this offending and comparing it against that of your co‑offenders, although I reject your characterisation of your role as a mere messenger, I consider that the Crown’s proposed starting point is higher than appropriate given parity considerations. I adopt a global starting point of 22 years’ imprisonment.
Personal circumstances
Guilty Plea
[64] You pleaded guilty shortly before the commencement of a significant jury trial. However, your counsel was in contact with the Crown regarding resolution in
April 2023 and the Crown accepts that a 20 per cent reduction is available to reflect your guilty plea.
[65] Ms Priest seeks a full 25 per cent guilty plea discount on the basis that this reflects your early willingness to resolve, and the fact that your guilty plea led other co-defendants to plead guilty. There is also the fact that the delay in resolution was due to disclosure issues.
[66] I have thought about this at some length, and I will apply the full 25 per cent for guilty plea. The reality is that you indicated a guilty plea would be forthcoming years before trial and the delay was due at least in part to disclosure issues relating to Crown and police enquiries with Malaysian authorities. I also think that your guilty plea was an important factor in ensuring that the eventual trial was of a much more limited scope.
Remorse
[67] Ms Priest highlighted the Provision of Advice to the Court (PAC) report’s assessment that you have expressed genuine remorse for your offending. She also notes that while on bail, you have begun coaching under 7s children’s rugby and have become a youth leader and mentor at your church. She argues that these efforts to give back to your community show a commitment to remorse beyond the bare acceptance of responsibility inherent in a guilty plea. It is submitted that a discount is warranted to reflect your genuine remorse.
[68] I accept that you are now remorseful, and I accept that you too were corrupted into this offending — you were vulnerable, partly by way of your background and your financial situation. The PAC report is positive and describes you as genuinely remorseful. I will apply a discrete five per cent discount.
Rehabilitation
[69] Ms Priest submits that a discount is appropriate for your efforts at rehabilitation and participation in rehabilitation programmes while on remand. She filed a letter
with the Court from a Te Pā kaiako describing your participation as proactive and insightful.
[70] I accept also that you were in part motivated by your addiction and that is a distinction between you and your co-defendants, in particular Mr Pritchard and Mr Manuel. I am prepared to grant a five per cent discount for efforts at rehabilitation. You are clearly a good candidate for rehabilitation which is related to the next factor.
Previous good character
[71] You have no prior criminal history. Ms Priest submits that, at the time of your offending, you were financially supporting your adopted parents; she has filed several letters which discuss your character and your involvement in the community. A five per cent reduction is sought to reflect previous good character.
[72] Again, however, I came to parity considerations and for previous good character for your co-offenders I previously applied a 10 per cent credit and I am going to apply the same credit to you. I cannot make it higher than that because the temptation to become involved in this type of offending is so great. There is so much money on offer that those with no criminal history are willing to become serious drug dealers, as was the case with your situation. Unless the Court is very clear that the offending is not worth it there will be more people like you who decide to take the risk and have their lives ruined as a result. Further, your previous good character must be balanced against the fact that I consider you did involve and encourage family members. The inference is simply impossible to resist. Your brother, your sister and her husband, and Mr Manuel were all connected to you. They may have known Mr Pritchard as well, but you were involved in organising this and you are at the centre of this group. The leadership role you took in relation to them is perfectly apparent from the messages and intercepted communications. Had you become aware that your younger brother was becoming involved in this with Mr Pritchard, you should have discouraged him not encouraged him. I consider the breach of trust and the involvement of others means that you were part of the corrupting influence and for that reason, although you do have previous good character, good rehabilitation
prospects and I accept you have genuine remorse, the overall discounts I have indicated are the highest that could apply.
Personal and cultural background
[73] Sections 8 and 27 of the Sentencing Act require me to consider your personal and cultural background. I have read your affidavit and character references, the s 27 report, and your PAC report. I have read about how you faced a dysfunctional upbringing, and I will not go into that in any detail, but after finding success and an escape playing rugby in Australia you were forced to return home to look after your family when your father was diagnosed with cancer. It is to your credit that you did that. You were under significant cultural, familial and financial pressures from this time forward. You ended up joining a rugby club with gang associations, and this led you to develop a methamphetamine addiction and to fall into significant debt to the gang. Ms Priest argues that this background and upbringing has a clear causative link to the offending and submits a 20 per cent reduction is available.
[74] I do not think that a 20 per cent reduction is warranted. I do not think that your background was a causative factor in your offending to that degree. You managed to avoid offending until well into your twenties. You are prosocial in many ways — you are married, you have children, and you were employed in a responsible position. Mainly you were tempted by the easy money and the chance to obtain methamphetamine. I do accept that your background placed financial stressors on you and your childhood conditioned you to feel obliged to support others financially and made you more vulnerable to an offer of “easy money”. I apply a five per cent credit.
Impact of incarceration on children
[75] Ms Priest has also referred to numerous cases in which reductions were granted to recognise the impact incarceration can have on an offender’s children.25 You, Mr Piukana, have a young family. You have four boys — aged eight, six, five and two years’ old — and your first daughter was born in December 2024. Before your incarceration, you were the primary caregiver for your children, as your wife worked
25 Most relevantly, Philip v R [2022] NZSC 149, [2022] 1 NZLR 571.
full time whereas your hours at the Airport were more flexible. Not only were you caring for your family, but you were also working to support them. Ms Priest argues that your incarceration will have a negative impact on your children given their youth and, in particular, your youngest children will only know you within the prison environment. Ms Priest submits a reduction of 10 per cent is justified in these circumstances.
[76] I accept that your sentence will be particularly difficult for your wife and your young family. I will apply a 10 per cent credit which is effectively an acknowledgement that your wife and children will suffer from your offending through no fault of their own. That credit is for them not you.
End sentence
[77] From a starting point of 22 years, I apply the credits set out which come to a total of 60 per cent. That is generous but does reflect your personal circumstances. That leaves an end sentence of just over eight years and nine months’ imprisonment. I regard that as the very lowest sentence that could be imposed. Even if some discounts could be justifiably higher, I would not regard that as appropriate as it would lead to an overall sentence that in my view would be manifestly inadequate despite your positive personal factors.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[78] The Crown seeks a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 50 per cent. That is provided for under s 86 of the Sentencing Act. An MPI must not be imposed as a matter of routine or in a mechanistic way. It is important to remember the purpose of an MPI and I have to ask if the period which you would serve would be insufficient for the purposes of denunciation and deterrence.
[79] Ms Priest submits that an MPI is not warranted in this case, and she highlights that one was not considered necessary in either Mr Manuel or Mr Pritchard’s cases. She argues that parity would go against the imposition of an MPI. Furthermore, Ms Priest contends that your personal circumstances mean an MPI is not necessary.
She also contends that an MPI would prevent you from accessing substantive rehabilitative programmes.
[80] This is your first sentence of imprisonment. Your role was higher than that of Mr Pritchard and Mr Manuel, but I must remember that Mr Pritchard actually retrieved the methamphetamine and removed it from the airport. You however directed both of them and you directed the other baggage handlers and your sister.
[81] The end sentence imposed is lower than that imposed on Mr Pritchard largely as a result of personal mitigating factors and a higher guilty plea discount, but I consider that your role is higher in the chain and that you undertook a role more akin to Mr Vuletic — who was also only just below Mr Iuvale but in respect of importations via the sea port. A 50 per cent MPI was imposed in Mr Vuletic’s case.26
[82] The imposition of an MPI is the matter which has caused me the most concern in your sentencing. The end sentence which you have arrived at is lower than Mr Pritchard and that causes me some concern because I think that your role in many ways was above Mr Pritchard. However, the starting point that I have taken in your case is above the starting point I took in Mr Pritchard’s case and Mr Pritchard did actually handle the methamphetamine and you did not.
[83] The discounts which applied to you included a larger discount for guilty plea because you indicated a guilty plea earlier and your expressions of remorse and the rehabilitation efforts that you have taken are significant. You also have a very young family which I have factored in. I consider that the remorse and rehabilitation prospects that are set out in the PAC report, by a very fine margin, persuade me not to impose an MPI and to take a position that is on parity with Mr Manuel and Mr Pritchard in that regard.
Sentence
[84]Mr Piukana would you please stand.
26 R v Vuletic [2024] NZHC 562.
[85] On the representative charge of importing methamphetamine, you are sentenced to eight years and nine months’ imprisonment.
[86] On the charge of conspiracy to import methamphetamine for supply, you are sentenced to a concurrent sentence of five years’ imprisonment.
[87]There is no minimum period of imprisonment.
[88]I make an order for the forfeiture of $23,430 that was seized.
[89]Stand down.
Wilkinson-Smith J
0
7
0