R v Puru - [2023] NZHC 2112

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2021-088-002754

[2023] NZHC 2112

THE KING

v

TIKELLAH WAIMARIA PURU

Hearing: 9 August 2023

Counsel:

AJ Goodwin for Crown

AB Fairley and MR Ridgley for Defendant

Judgment:

9 August 2023

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei. Thomson Wilson, Whangarei.

R v PURU [2023] NZHC 2112 [9 August 2023]

[1] Tikellah Puru, you are for sentence on one charge: participation in an organised criminal group.1 The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment. The charge is serious.

[2] It arises because of a Police and Customs operation called Freya. The investigation began in March 2020 and ended 12 November 2021. It was directed at an organised criminal group that imported, manufactured, and supplied drugs throughout Northland. The group’s drug of choice was methamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug. The group also dealt MDMA and pseudoephedrine, Class B controlled drugs. You were a member of that group.

[3] The summary of facts in relation to your offending is somewhat discursive, which makes it a little difficult to follow. I summarise what I understand to be the key aspects:

(a)You were in a relationship with the group’s leader. Because he is yet to be tried, I refer to him this way rather than by name. Your father was also a member of the group. You profited from the large amounts of money the group made because of these relationships, especially the former. This funded your lifestyle.

(b)On 28 October 2021, one of your telephone calls to your father was intercepted. You asked him to get some cash out for you to collect. He asked you if you wanted “all of it”. You replied just $140,000. That, of course, is a lot of money.

(c)The group’s leader used a variety of addresses for the importation of methamphetamine. One was your home.

(d)On 17 October 2021, you asked your father whether he had any at home. You explained “one of the cuzzies wants one”. You agreed the “cuzzie” had the money and wanted one. These references concerned an ounce of methamphetamine.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.

[4] Several of your co-offenders have been sentenced.2 Their sentences reflect their charges, what each did, and their personal circumstances. Your sentence must reflect your charge, what you did, and your personal circumstances. This is obvious but should be said for just this reason.

[5] The Crown refers to the sentences imposed on your co-offenders and to other cases.3 So too your lawyer, Mr Fairley.4 The Crown contends your starting point should be four years’ imprisonment. Mr Fairley says two and a half years’ imprisonment.

[6] I am satisfied the Crown’s starting point is correct given your level of participation in the organised criminal enterprise and the cases I have referred to, including those of your co-offenders. I add these remarks.

[7] Your offending was serious. It would ordinarily require what the law calls denunciation and deterrence.5 These are…

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 Puru

Details

AGLC: R v Puru [2023] NZHC 2112
Case: [2023] NZHC 2112
Decision Date: 9 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Whangarei Registry, the case of R v Puru was heard on 9 August 2023. Tikellah Waimaria Puru was sentenced for her participation in an organised criminal group involved in the importation, manufacture, and supply of drugs in Northland. The group primarily dealt in methamphetamine and other controlled substances, and Puru was a member. The legal issues centred on determining an appropriate starting point for her sentence, considering her level of participation, and then applying relevant deductions for factors such as her age, the timing of her guilty plea, and her custodial history.

The court found that the appropriate starting point for Puru's sentence was four years' imprisonment, taking into account her significant involvement in the criminal group and comparisons with sentences imposed on her co-offenders. However, several deductions were made. A 15 percent reduction was applied for her guilty plea, considering its timing and the benefits she received from the plea arrangement. Further reductions of 10 percent for her age and rehabilitative prospects, 5 percent for her son's needs, and 20 percent for her time on bail with various conditions, cumulatively reducing the starting point by 50 percent to two years' imprisonment. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of 12 months' home detention, reflecting Puru's exceptional circumstances, particularly her relationship with her young son who has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.

Orders