R v Rata - [2024] NZHC 2292

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

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

CRI-2021-088-002754

[2024] NZHC 2292

THE KING

v

HERBERT RATA

Defendant

Hearing: 15 August 2024

Appearances:

B M O’Connor, A J Goodwin for the Crown P K Hamlin, B A Mugisho for Mr Rata

Judgment:

15 August 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith (Office of the Crown Solicitor) Whangarei Hamlin Law, Auckland

R v RATA [2024] NZHC 2292 [15 August 2024]

[1] Mr Rata, you have pleaded guilty to a charge for participation in an organised criminal group between February 2020 and 12 November 2021.

[2]I now sentence you for your offending.

Facts of the offending

[3] Operation Freya was a joint Police and Customs exercise that detected various forms of methamphetamine and other drug related offending from March 2020 to 12 November 2021. Thirteen defendants were identified, including you, Mr Rata. All have pleaded guilty to various charges associated with this offending, which I will call collectively the enterprise.

Overview

[4] By way of overview, the enterprise included importation, manufacture and supply of methamphetamine and other illicit drugs. The importation involved 20 different illicit drug importations, including 16.9 kg of methamphetamine at 69 per cent purity. This amounted to 11.6 kg of pure methamphetamine. Customs also intercepted at least 2.547 kg of MDMA and 1.056 kg of pseudoephedrine (which could be used to manufacture 750 g of methamphetamine) in parcels bound for numerous Northland addresses. While the enterprise tried on numerous occasions to secure the materials needed to manufacture methamphetamine, only one manufacture was proven by police of about 400 g. Methamphetamine was also supplied by the enterprise, the most notably involving the supply of 14 ounces over four-day period in October, but the supply went for a longer period than that.

Participation in organised criminal group

[5] I mention this only as background because Mr Rata, you were not directly involved in this offending. Rather, you as a member of the Head Hunters were a passive member of this enterprise and received a financial kick back for providing the environment within which the enterprise operated. You also have unexplained income totalling $100,166.87, including about $16,915.69 in unknown deposits and $9,780 in

cash deposits. You also had oversight of a prospect, Mr Ivan Watene, who was selling methamphetamine at a street level.

Sentencing

[6] I turn now to the process I must follow for sentencing you. It is in three key steps:

(a)first, I must set out what is called a starting point for a sentence of imprisonment;

(b)second, I must then increase that starting point for any personal factors that raise further concerns about you, as well as take into account any reasons that justify a more lenient approach to your sentence; and

(c)I must also at least consider giving you guilty plea discount.

[7] Throughout this process, I must be guided by the purposes and principles of sentencing, including the need to deter you and others…

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 Rata

Details

AGLC: R v Rata [2024] NZHC 2292
Case: [2024] NZHC 2292
Decision Date: 15 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Herbert Rata, pleaded guilty to charges of participating in an organised criminal group involved in the importation, manufacture, and supply of methamphetamine and other illicit drugs between February 2020 and November 2021. The court heard that Rata was a passive member of the group, providing financial kickbacks and oversight of a street-level seller. Rata received unexplained income of $100,166.87 during the relevant period. The court was required to determine an appropriate starting point for sentencing, consider any factors that warranted an increase or decrease in the sentence, and assess any discounts for a guilty plea. The Crown argued for a starting point of four and a half to five years, citing Rata's seniority within the group and unexplained income. Rata's counsel argued for a starting point of two and a half years, citing the lesser involvement of Rata compared to other defendants. The court found that a starting point of four years was appropriate, similar to another defendant who had a passive role in a similar enterprise. The Crown also sought an uplift of four months for Rata being on bail during the offending, while Rata's counsel argued for a one-month uplift. The court decided on a four-month uplift. Rata's counsel sought various discounts for background factors, rehabilitation, time in custody, time on electronic monitoring (EM) bail, and a guilty plea. The Crown opposed these discounts, arguing that Rata continued to minimise his role and may have been manipulative. The court found that Rata should receive a 15 per cent discount for background factors and a 15 per cent discount for rehabilitation, resulting in a combined discount of 30 per cent. The court allowed a nine-month discount for time spent on EM bail and in custody and a five per cent discount for the guilty plea. The court concluded that a sentence of two years and one month was appropriate, but opted for a home detention sentence of 12 months, finding Rata suitable for this sentence given his rehabilitation efforts and community support.

The court ordered that Rata be sentenced to 12 months' home detention for participating in an organised criminal group.

Orders