R v Piukana - [2024] NZHC 3428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-004-7913

[2024] NZHC 3428

THE KING

v

SANLOLAN PIUKANA SITALEKI MAKA

TOKOFA PAULO TOROMA MAIRIAU SAILOR PAPATAUTURU SAMSON

Hearing: 14 November 2024

Counsel:

R A van Boheemen for Crown M A Edgar for Defendant Maka

V J Feyen for Defendant Piukana

S Tait on behalf of J M Hudson for Defendant Toroma B J Meyer for Defendant Samson

Sentenced:

14 November 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland. M A Edgar, Auckland.
V J Feyen, Auckland.
J M Hudson, Auckland. B J Meyer, Auckland.

R v PIUKANA AND ORS [2024] NZHC 3428 [14 November 2024]

Introduction [1]

The offending[4]

The principles and purpose of sentencing[33]

Sentences[37]

Ms Piukana and Mr Maka — starting points[37]

Ms Piukana — personal factors and end sentence[47]

Mr Maka — personal factors and end sentence[57]

Mr Samson and Mr Toroma[68]

Mr Samson — sentence[83]

Mr Toroma —sentence[99]

Addendum[116]

Introduction

[1] Ms Piukana, Mr Maka, Mr Samson, and Mr Toroma, you appear for sentence today for your roles in the commercial importation of methamphetamine into New Zealand.

[2] Ms Piukana and Mr Maka, you each pleaded guilty to one representative charge of receiving property valued over $1,000.1

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 246 and 247(a). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.

[3] Mr Samson and Mr Toroma, you each pleaded guilty to one charge of participation in an organised criminal group.2

The offending

[4] When entering your guilty pleas, you each accepted a summary of facts. I have had regard to the specific facts that you each accepted in considering the sentence to be imposed.

[5] 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).

[6] One of these syndicates was directed by Nigel Iuvale — a patched member of the King Cobra gang and a co-offender in this offending.

[7] Throughout 2021, Matangi Piukana, a close associate of Mr Iuvale who worked for Air New Zealand as a Service Delivery Leader at the domestic terminal of the Airport, received instructions from Mr Iuvale via encrypted messaging apps and face-to-face meetings relating to the importation of methamphetamine on board Malaysian Airlines flight MH145 and Air New Zealand flight NZ5. In his role at Air New Zealand Mr Piukana was responsible for assigning baggage handlers to particular flights and for unloading baggage when the crew was short staffed. By virtue of his employment, he had airside access to international flights arriving at the Airport.

[8] On multiple occasions Mr Piukana organised a crew of baggage handlers to 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.

2 Section 98A. Maximum penalty:…

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 Piukana

Details

AGLC: R v Piukana [2024] NZHC 3428
Case: [2024] NZHC 3428
Decision Date: 14 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Piukana and others involves four defendants who were part of a syndicate responsible for the commercial importation of methamphetamine into New Zealand. Ms Piukana and Mr Maka pleaded guilty to receiving property valued over $1,000, while Mr Samson and Mr Toroma pleaded guilty to participation in an organised criminal group. The syndicate used corrupt baggage handlers at Auckland International Airport to facilitate the importation of drugs, with significant quantities involved. The court considered the principles and purpose of sentencing, focusing on accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and the least restrictive sentence appropriate.

The starting points for sentencing were determined based on the seriousness of the offending, with aggravating factors including the significant commercial element, the breach of trust by airport baggage handlers, and the potential harm to the community. For Ms Piukana and Mr Maka, the starting point was set at three years’ imprisonment, with credits applied for their guilty pleas and personal circumstances, leading to a sentence of home detention. Mr Samson, who handled and delivered 10 kilograms of methamphetamine, received a starting point of three years and six months’ imprisonment, reduced to two years and four months’ with credits for his guilty plea and rehabilitative efforts. Mr Toroma, who abused his position as a baggage handler, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, reflecting the serious breach of trust and the need for deterrence.

Final orders include sentences of home detention for Ms Piukana and Mr Maka, two years and four months’ imprisonment for Mr Samson, and three years’ imprisonment for Mr Toroma. Forfeiture orders were made for specific items related to the offending.

Orders