R v Puru
[2023] NZHC 2112
•9 August 2023
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 big words for concepts that mean marking out what you did as wrong and ensuring others do not act in the same way. In terms of starting point, I would have adopted a higher one had it not been for the likelihood you were acting under the influence of the leader of the group—who again, was your partner—and your father’s influence. This is not to suggest you were under any compulsion or duress. Rather, it is to recognise the likelihood they influenced your actions because of the relationship with you and the importance of those relationships. Again, we are concerned with your partner and your father.
[8] You were charged in November 2021. You pleaded guilty 12 May 2023 in return for four conspiracy charges being withdrawn.
2 R v Tali [2022] NZHC 2181; R v Hilton [2023] NZHC 808; R v Arama [2023] NZHC 953 and
R v Kerr [2023] NZHC 1176.
3 R v Fonua [2020] NZHC 3107; R v Naufahu [2021] NZHC 1065; R v Edmands [2022] NZHC 246; R v Green [2016] NZHC 770 and Hessel v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607.
Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, [2020] 3 NZLR 583; Paku v R [2011] NZCA 269; Zhang v R [2019]
NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648, R v Hessell [2009] NZCA 450; R v Churchward [2012] NZCA
531; Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509 and Puru v R [2022] NZCA 429.
5 Sentencing Act 2002, s 7.
[9] There is a difference of opinion about the deduction for your guilty plea. Mr Fairley says this should be about 22 percent, a figure apparently given to at least some of the other co-offenders. The Crown says 15 percent.
[10] The Supreme Court has made it clear to trial Judges the discount for a guilty plea turns on several factors including the strength of the prosecution case, whether the defendant receives a benefit from a plea arrangement, and the timing of the plea.6 So, I apply this framework.
[11] The timing of your plea cannot be described as prompt given when the charges were laid, and given you benefited from the plea arrangement. I have not been told about the strength of the prosecution case beyond that the evidence included intercepted conversations, including your intercepted conversations. I, therefore, allow 15 percent. I add that if people receive unduly generous discounts for guilty pleas, that is not fair on those who plead guilty genuinely early, including when the strength of the Crown case may not be known.
[12] I turn to your personal circumstances. These are important. You are 26 years old. You have no other convictions. A cultural report and a pre-sentence report suggest you were raised in a loving and stable environment, but you ran away at a young age and fell in with the wrong crowd. This led you to drugs, including methamphetamine. You have a son who is two years and eight months old. He has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.
[13] From this dense summary, I emphasise three things. First, you are young. Second, you are a first-offender. Third, you have a young son who needs you. I pause to observe, you need to do better for him. Understood? [Ms Puru nodded.]
[14] Your pre-sentence report seems positive; it is, at least, not pessimistic about your future.
6 Hessel v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607.
[15] Given this mix, I deduct 10 percent for your age and rehabilitative prospects. I emphasise the term “prospects”. I deduct another five percent in recognition of your son’s needs and the importance of your relationship with your son.
[16] You were in custody until 2 December 2021. You were then granted electronically monitored bail. On 19 May 2022, that changed to a 24-hour curfew with no electronic monitoring. Then, from 9 September 2022, you were again on electronically monitored bail albeit with an overnight curfew rather than a 24-hour one. It follows you have been on bail for approximately 20 months with a variety of conditions. I deduct 20 percent for that mix acknowledging that some of your periods for electronic monitoring have not required a full 24-hour curfew.
[17] So, with your guilty plea discount, these deductions reduce the four-year starting point by 50 percent, to two years’ imprisonment. I add that I am satisfied your circumstances are sufficiently exceptional to warrant such a large discount. I say this because I appreciate the extent of sentencing discounts is a matter of legitimate community concern.
[18] The Department of Corrections believes you are capable of complying with electronic monitoring and in turn home detention. I said the law ordinarily requires denunciation and deterrence for offending of this type for the simple reason it is serious, it is bad.7 But, because of your circumstances, especially those in relation to your son, I am satisfied home detention is in the interests of justice.
[19] Ms Puru please stand. On the charge of participating in an organised criminal group, I impose a term of 12 months’ home detention to the same home you have been living at.
[20] Mr Fairley reminds me there are outstanding charges to be withdrawn in recognition of the plea arrangement. I dismiss those charges.
7 Sentencing Act, s 7.
[21]You may stand down.
……………………………..
Downs J