R v Puhara - [2018] NZHC 3271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2018-092-4045

CRI 2018-004-0221

[2018] NZHC 3271

THE QUEEN

v

JAMES PUHARA

Hearing: 12 December 2018

Appearances:

FMT Culliney for the Crown

R L Thomson for the Defendant

Judgment:

12 December 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland R L Thomson, Barrister, Auckland

R v PUHARA [2018] NZHC 3271 [12 January 2018]

Introduction

[1] Mr Puhara, you have pleaded guilty to three charges of conspiring to supply, and one representative charge of actually supplying, methamphetamine.

[2] You pleaded shortly after my sentence indication to you on 6 November 2018.1 I indicated to you a sentence of imprisonment for a period of no more than seven years and six months, less any available discounts arising from the pre-sentence reports, which I now have before me. What I have now to say relies on that indication – I am not going to move away from that indication.

[3] In addition, however, three further methamphetamine-related charges, not subject to my earlier indication, have been transferred from the District Court for my sentencing today. They are for possession of utensils, methamphetamine use, and possession of methamphetamine for supply.

The alleged offending

[4] The charges I dealt with in my indication arise out of a police investigation, beginning in January 2018, into a methamphetamine supply chain. That chain was said to involve your co-defendant Mr To’a as the main supplier; two associates and another co-defendant, Mr Pomale, as ‘middle-men’; and you, Mr Puhara, selling and supplying methamphetamine.

[5] There are three charges for conspiring to supply. You twice conspired with Mr Pomale to sell: four ounces (or 112 grams) on 21 August 2017 and 10 ounces (or 280 grams) on 1 September 2017. The planning here was at a fairly early stage.

[6] The final conspiracy, however, came much closer to actual execution. You conspired with Mr To’a and Mr Pomale on 1 September 2017 to supply unknown persons with 504 grams of methamphetamine (that comprising the bulk of the total amount you conspired to supply). The would-be customer seems to have pulled out of the deal at the last minute.

1 R v Puhara [2018] NZHC 2883.

[7]As for the representative charge, you supplied unknown persons with at least

79 grams of methamphetamine during the 17 days between 21 August and 6 September 2017.

[8] Now there are also the three new charges to which you have pleaded guilty. On 10 January 2018, your car was stopped by police and one of the people you were with was arrested for breaching his bail conditions. Police found on his person multiple small plastic snap lock bags and a gas burner, items commonly used in the sale and consumption of methamphetamine. In the following search of the vehicle, police located a glass pipe, digital scales, a large quantity of small plastic snap lock bags,
$200 cash, and a metal tin containing 20.23…

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 Puhara

Details

AGLC: R v Puhara [2018] NZHC 3271
Case: [2018] NZHC 3271
Decision Date: 12 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, James Puhara was sentenced on charges of conspiring to supply and supplying methamphetamine. The charges stemmed from an investigation into a methamphetamine supply chain, with Puhara acting as a supplier. Puhara pleaded guilty to three conspiracy charges and one charge of actual supply. Additional charges related to possession and use of methamphetamine were transferred from the District Court for sentencing.

The court had to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account the seriousness of the offending, Puhara's personal circumstances, and his early guilty plea. The starting point for the sentence was established by considering the amount of methamphetamine involved and the level of planning, which led to a starting point of 10 years imprisonment. The court then applied personal discounts for factors such as Puhara's young age, remorse, and willingness to change, reducing the sentence to 8 years and 8 months. An additional 25% discount for the guilty plea resulted in a final sentence of 6 years and 6 months imprisonment. The court also ordered the destruction of drug-related items and the forfeiture of cash found during the investigation.

Puhara was sentenced to 6 years and 6 months imprisonment for the charges heard in the High Court and received additional penalties for the transferred charges. The two-month uplift for the transferred charges was discounted to one month, to be served concurrently with the main sentence. The court encouraged Puhara to engage in drug treatment while in prison and emphasized the importance of following through on his intentions to change.

Orders