R v Rauhihi
[2025] NZHC 713
•21 March 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE
CRI-2023-009-007536
[2025] NZHC 713
THE KING v
TRAMAYNE RAUHIHI
Hearing: 21 March 2025 Appearances:
P N M Brown for Crown (at sentencing 21 March 2025) C R Stuart for Crown (at recall 31 March 2025)
S R Norrie for Defendant (at sentencing 21 March 2025)
L R Brown on behalf of S R Norrie for Defendant (at recall 31 March 2025)Sentencing notes:
21 March 2025
Recalled:
31 March 2025
SENTENCING NOTES OF EATON J
This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:
R v RAUHIHI [2025] NZHC 713 [21 March 2025]
Introduction
[1] Tramayne Rauhihi, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine,1 one representative charge of supplying cocaine,2 one charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply,3 and one charge of possessing cocaine for supply.4
The offending
[2] Your offending arises from a police investigation code-named Operation Italian Sky. The operation identified members of the Tribesmen (Tribesmen) Motorcycle (MC) gang operating a multi-million-dollar methamphetamine and cocaine supply network based in Christchurch between September 2021 and October 2023. Members of the gang involved in the supply network arranged for the delivery of large amounts of cash to Auckland and for the transportation of large quantities of methamphetamine and cocaine to Christchurch, on commercial flights or on tow-trucks.
[3] Ricky Poa (formerly Smith) is a patched member of the Tribesmen. He holds the rank of National Vice President. Mr Poa is the principal offender of the methamphetamine and cocaine supply network. He was the leader and, it is acknowledged, the main financial beneficiary of the drug dealing activity. He was primarily responsible for sourcing kilogram quantities of methamphetamine and cocaine from organised criminal groups in Auckland and elsewhere. Consistent with that role, he, personally, did not have the controlled drugs or cash in his possession. Instead, he arranged for trusted patched members and other gang associates to manage the transportation of drugs and cash. Mr Poa has entered guilty pleas. He has admitted his role in the offending. He is yet to be sentenced.
[4] You are 34 years old. You were introduced into this operation when you were offered employment through a friend, Blake Harpur at CANT0W, a towing company based here in Christchurch. I accept that when you accepted the job offer you did not
1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c), (2)(a) and 66; maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2 Sections 6(1)(c), (2)(a) and 66; maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3 Sections 6(1)(f), (2)(a) and 66; maximum penalty life imprisonment.
4 Sections 6(1)(f), (2)(a) and 66; maximum penalty life imprisonment.
believe your role would be engaging in anything other than legitimate activity. Mr Harpur was someone you had always looked up to and admired and someone to whom you felt a deep sense of loyalty. Shortly after your employment commenced, Mr Harpur directed you to transport packages. From there, and under the direction of Mr Harpur and Mr Poa’s brother, Andrew Smith, who is a patched Tribesman, you transported cash by vehicle from Christchurch to Auckland and brought back methamphetamine and cocaine. Mr Harpur supplied you with small amounts of cocaine to aid you to stay awake during those long-haul drives. You made no less than 14 drug deliveries to Christchurch over a period of five months.
[5] The summary of facts tells me the last trip that you undertook was on 3 October 2023. That was when you were arrested at the Gull Service Station in Mt Roskill in Auckland. You were in possession of nearly two kilograms of methamphetamine and over 1.5 kilograms of cocaine.
[6] It is agreed for the purposes of your sentencing that the total quantity directly attributable to the 14 trips you made is no less than 17 kilograms of methamphetamine and 3.6 kilograms of cocaine.
[7] Generally, I would describe your role as being that of a transporter. There is no evidence you profited or received payment for your involvement or that you dealt directly with customers—other than a dealer you were instructed to supply in Blenheim. But you were, obviously, trusted to handle very large amounts of money and drugs by the Tribesmen. You messaged Mr Harpur about collecting drugs and the quality of them. You took a video of a bag of cash at the time $300,000 was being transported to Auckland. Although I accept you may not have been aware of the full scale of this drug dealing operation, you must have been aware it was pretty significant given the quantities you were transporting.
Your explanation
[8] In an affidavit you have sworn for this sentencing and consistent with what you told police on arrest, you say that you were presented with an employment opportunity by Mr Harpur that appealed as a “dream job”. That reflected your love of driving and the prospect of a four-day working week that would enable you to spend more time
with your family. You depose that you have always respected and looked up to Mr Harpur. You say you found it hard to say no to him as he has done a lot for you in the past. And you say that once you began transporting drugs and learned the gang was involved, you became scared about what would happen to you or your family if you refused, and you felt trapped.
[9] In an affidavit filed for sentencing by your long-term partner, who is present in Court this afternoon, I am told that when you were offered a job with Mr Harpur, all you were seeking was reliable employment. Your partner says you were offered a fuel card, paid lunches and a four-day working week, again from her perspective, to spend more time with the family. She says that pretty quickly however, your work schedule became erratic. At no stage was she aware of the illegal activity that you were involved with.
Personal circumstances
[10] I have a great deal of material regarding your personal circumstances. In addition to a pre-sentence and an alcohol and drug report, I have the affidavits I have referred to. I have supporting letters from your mother, your sisters, your aunt, your grandparents, current and previous employers, colleagues, friends and neighbours.
Department of Corrections’ pre-sentence report
[11] The pre-sentence report tells me you are 34. You identify as Tangata Whenua from Ngāti Raukawa. You have been with your partner for 16 years. It tells me about your four-year-old daughter.
[12] You were raised in a single parent home by your mother with the support of your maternal grandparents in South Auckland. You experienced physical and verbal abuse and witnessed your mother being physically abused. Due to the ongoing family violence that you witnessed within your family home, you left and went out on your own when you were about 16 years old.
[13] You, however, remain very strongly supported by your family. Your partner describes you as a “devoted partner” and a “present, hands-on father” and she says that particularly having regard to her knowledge of your childhood.
[14] You have six previous convictions, but they all resulted in fines. This is, very clearly, your first experience of serious offending. The report writer identified the factors contributing to your offending as poor problem-solving skills, a lack of consequential thinking and anti-social peers. It is the report writer’s view that your kindness, trust, and loyalty as a friend was manipulated by someone who you once called a family friend.
[15] You were assessed as posing a low risk of harm to others and a low risk of reoffending. But acknowledging the seriousness of the offending and applicable tariffs, a sentence of imprisonment was ultimately recommended.
Alcohol and Drug report
[16] The Alcohol and Drug (AOD) report says your family history is indicative of a potential genetic vulnerability to alcohol, cannabis and other drug dependency. The report writers find it likely that negative experiences from physical and emotional abuse that you experienced during your childhood have impacted your mental health generally and led to drug use.
[17] The report writers tell me that you are willing to engage in alcohol and drug treatment after your sentence and they referred in their report to your completion of the Te Whare Tapa Whā programme in Auckland.
[18] I will refer to other portions of the affidavits and references as I deal with particular issues relevant to your sentencing.
Approach to sentencing
[19] The Sentencing Act 2002 sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing that I must take into account when I sentence you today. The relevant purposes include accountability, denunciation, deterrence and your rehabilitation. I need to consider the
gravity of your offending, the degree of your personal culpability, the seriousness of the offending overall, and the general desirability of consistency in imposing sentences for like offending. I am required by law to impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.
[20] I must fix a term of imprisonment as a starting point that is commensurate with the seriousness of the offending. That is in accordance with sentencing guidelines provided by the senior appellate courts for Class A drug offending.5 Broadly speaking, your culpability is to be assessed, as I am sure by now, Ms Norrie will have explained to you, by reference to both the quantity of drugs involved in your admitted offending,6 and also by the role that you played in the offending. From there, I must consider matters that are personal to you that could either aggravate, that is to uplift, or mitigate, that is to deduct, from what I assess to be the appropriate starting point.
[21] But in cases like this involving large scale methamphetamine and cocaine operations, it is important that I recognise and that you recognise the harm that is caused to the community by serious drug offending. The distribution of methamphetamine and cocaine has, as a consequence, endless victims in our communities. The people who become addicted to methamphetamine and cocaine often experience the very worst outcomes including adverse mental health consequences, criminal offending committed to fund addiction, the breakdown and destruction of personal relationships, of employment relationships, and ultimately, giving rise to social deprivation.7 I think everybody in our community is aware that methamphetamine causes havoc to so many people. To your credit, your affidavit tells me that it is only since your arrest that is something you have grappled with and that you now truly understand the social harm that is caused by that drug.
5 Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509; and Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3
NZLR 648.
6 Zhang v R, above n 5, at [104], [106]–[117] and [126]–[127].
7 At [78]–[79].
Starting point
[22] Before I fix a starting point for your offending, I address the question as to the appropriate approach I should take given your offending involves substantial quantities of both methamphetamine and cocaine.
[23] While both the Crown and defence counsel propose I distinguish between the methamphetamine and cocaine charges by adopting discrete starting points and accumulating them before making a totality adjustment, I prefer the approach I adopted in R v Smith.8 That is because all of your offending falls under the umbrella of the same operation and involves you performing the very same role regardless of the drug involved.
[24] I propose fixing a global starting point for the totality quantity of drugs involved and then making a proportionate deduction to reflect that around 17 per cent of the drugs you are to be sentenced in relation to were cocaine as opposed to methamphetamine. That is an approach that was adopted by the Court of Appeal in Cavallo v R, which held sentencing for cocaine should not exceed sentencing for equivalent amounts of methamphetamine and should generally be sentenced slightly below the comparable methamphetamine starting points.9 The Court suggested a five per cent lower starting point for cocaine.10
[25] In your case, the Crown submit that a starting point of 11 to 12 years’ imprisonment is appropriate for your methamphetamine offending alone. For the cocaine offending, a discrete starting point of eight to 10 years’ imprisonment is sought, but recognising that a totality deduction is appropriate, the Crown contend for an overall starting point of 13 years’ imprisonment. Ms Norrie, on your behalf, submits the global starting point should be no more than 10 years’ imprisonment.
[26] The Court of Appeal in Zhang v R provided guidelines for sentencing in relation to Class A controlled drugs.11 The Court identified sentencing bands that
8 R v Smith [2025] NZHC 140 at [28]–[44].
9 Cavallo v R [2022] NZCA 276, (2022) 30 CRNZ 726.
10 At [63].
11 Zhang v R, above n 5.
relate to the quantity involved and the characteristics of different roles played by offenders.
[27] Quantity is an important measure of culpability or blameworthiness because it indicates the overall commerciality of the offending. It indicates the extent of the harm that is caused to the community. Quantity is assessed by reference to five bands with band five being the most serious and a band that applies whenever the quantities involved exceed two kilograms.12 The Court of Appeal in Zhang said that starting points for offending within band five should be in the range of 10 years up to life imprisonment.13 You were a party to the supply of not less than 20.6 kilograms of Class A drugs, placing this offending very clearly within band five.
[28] The Court in Zhang also confirmed that in determining the starting point, the role played by an offender must be carefully considered. In Berkland v R the Supreme Court refined the factors that ought to be taken into account to decide whether the role an offender played falls within what is referred to as the “lesser”, “significant” or the “leading” role category.14 The Supreme Court described the role of the offender as a “fundamental component of the gravity and culpability assessment”15 and said that a defendant’s role could:16
…drive movements both within and between the quantum driven bands. In other words, there is no reason in principle why role cannot be even more impactful than quantum, if justified in the circumstances. This may well be the case, for example, if the circumstances demonstrate that, irrespective of quantum, the offender’s role in relation to it falls within the lower end of “lesser”.
[29] Mr Rauhihi, the Crown accepts your role within this operation can be categorised as lesser, that is the bottom of the three categories, but the Crown take issue with your counsel’s submission that it falls at the lowest end of that lesser spectrum.
12 At [125].
13 At [125].
14 Berkland v R, above n 5, at [71].
15 At [63].
16 At [64].
[30] In assessing your role, I think it is significant that you had no connection at all to the Tribesmen. Rather you innocently began working for a trusted friend. You were used, quite unwittingly at first, I accept, to transport cash and return with drugs, and I acknowledge that you quickly found yourself immersed in a situation that left you uncomfortable, concerned, frightened, but feeling constrained to continue out of a sense of both loyalty and an unawareness as to what your other options might be.
[31] By reference to the Berkland role profile table, I agree you performed a limited role, that of a transporter, and that you were always acting under the direction of others. I accept there was a degree of what I would describe as unspoken coercion and that your initial involvement was through naiveté. You were not motivated by, nor did you secure, a financial gain but you were receiving drugs albeit primarily to allow you to carry out your allocated role. You have continued with the unlawful activity over the five-month period, concerned that if you were to quit, either you or your family could be at risk. There were other pressures that you were facing. You were anxious to retain employment. That is understandable. You were the sole provider for your family, and you did not want to let your family down financially.
[32] I agree you had no influence over anyone above you in the chain. As regards your knowledge of the scale of the operation, I accept you did not have full knowledge. The full scale would have only been known by those significantly above you in the operation. But you must have understood this was significant. You knew from an early stage that drugs were involved because you were being given cocaine to help you stay awake on the journeys. As I say you took photos of large amounts of cash within packages and sent them to a friend. You had expressed concerns about your employment and the practices that you were engaged in. And as I say, the amount of drugs that you personally transported must have indicated to you that whatever the scale, it was significant.
[33] Overall, I am satisfied your role does fall very much at the lower end of the spectrum of the lesser category.
[34] As Ms Norrie has submitted, I must have regard to cases that bear similarities to or are otherwise connected to your offending. And I have been reminded of the
need for parity with the sentences that were imposed on co-defendants in R v Smith,17 R v Erikson18 and R v Caffery.19
[35] Andrew Smith was sentenced on charges of supplying or possessing for supply, both methamphetamine and cocaine, and participating in an organised criminal group (OCG). He was sentenced for dealing with 30 kilograms of Class A drugs, including 25 kilograms of methamphetamine. He was a patched member of the Tribesmen and demonstrated significant loyalty to the gang and to his brother, Mr Poa, who was at the apex of the operation. Mr Smith was in direct communication with Mr Poa. He was very close to the original source of the drugs. His role was assessed as being mid-level significant. A global starting point of 15 years and six months’ imprisonment was fixed for all charges. In relation to both quantity and role, Mr Smith’s offending was significantly more culpable than yours.
[36] Jaxxon Erikson was sentenced on charges of supplying or possessing methamphetamine for supply, kidnapping, and participating in an OCG. He was responsible for organising and transporting around 14 kilograms of methamphetamine over a 10-month period, which included two supply lines. He was a Tribesman prospect. He worked closely with his brother, a patched member, as well as with Mr Poa. He was assessed as being close to the original source and did have knowledge of the scale of the operation. There were others under him in the chain of command. He did benefit financially from his role. His role was nevertheless assessed as “lesser”, but not at the lowest end. A starting point of 11 years’ imprisonment was fixed for the methamphetamine and OCG offending.
[37] Your offending involved a significantly higher quantity of drugs than Mr Erikson, but it is not disputed that you were further down the chain than him.
[38] Mr Caffery’s Class A dealing involved a little under two kilograms of methamphetamine which placed him in a lower band of Zhang. In my view, the
17 R v Smith, above n 8.
18 R v Erikson [2025] NZHC 187.
19 R v Caffery [2025] NZHC 203.
significantly lesser quantity of drugs limits the relevance of the sentence imposed for Mr Caffery.
[39] In the written submissions, Crown counsel referred to Esfehani-Bahadori v R in support of the submission that a starting point for your methamphetamine offending of around 11 years would be lenient even for an offender performing a lesser role.20 Mr Esfehani-Bahadori was convicted for being in possession of at least 2.5 kilograms of methamphetamine for supply and a starting point of 10 years was adopted. That offender who was a committed gang member had accompanied another gang member on three occasions to purchase quantities of methamphetamine. The Court recognised his role was a “lesser role” but found no suggestion his culpability was reduced by factors such as drug addiction or coercion from an overbearing and violent partner. Rather, the Court considered him to be aware of the scale of the operation, financially motivated and willing to play his part as a member of the gang.
[40] Mr Esfehani-Bahadori’s membership of the gang that was behind the drug dealing operation is, in my view, a significant distinguishing factor. The starting points adopted for him and other offenders in that operation must necessarily reflect the role that individual offenders played.
[41] Relevantly however, the Court was not persuaded Mr Esfehani-Bahadori’s role was so limited as to warrant setting a starting point in a lower band than band five, notwithstanding the quantity of methamphetamine was low end band five.
[42] Having reviewed those cases, and carefully considered the role you played, I am satisfied this is a case where the role that you ultimately played is more relevant than the quantum of drugs involved in assessing your true culpability.
[43] Notwithstanding what I assess to be your low-level lesser role, this was without question very serious offending. It is not a case of a one-off error of judgment or a bad and regretted call. It is not a case where it is suggested you had no knowledge of the nature or quantity of the drugs involved in your offending. The fact is that on at least 14 occasions you drove between Auckland and Christchurch transporting cash
20 Esfehani-Bahadori v R [2023] NZCA 146.
and exchanging it for Class A drugs. This occurred over a period of around five months, which is roughly three return trips a month. What that tells me is that for that five-month period this offending was an integral part of your life.
[44] My sense, Mr Rauhihi, is that your arrest might have come as something of a relief to you. I accept you would have been concerned as to how to extricate yourself from the operation which was clearly ongoing, but you were benefitting in that you were a regular recipient of cocaine and, as I have said, you had ongoing employment allowing you to support and spend time with your family.
[45] Ms Norrie has made very powerful submissions saying all that could possibly be said on your behalf in an endeavour to persuade me that your role in this offending was low-level, which I have accepted, and that it was unique. I certainly agree that it was low-level in terms of your role. Ms Norrie has not suggested that I should adopt a starting point below the bottom of the range of band five in Zhang and I agree that is appropriate. And I say that, given the frequency with which you transported such significant quantities of Class A drugs.
[46] Overall, I assess the appropriate starting point to be one of 11 years’ imprisonment. But in line with guidance provided in Cavallo, I adopt a further deduction of two months to reflect that 3.6 kilograms of the drug you transported was cocaine. The adjusted starting point is ten years and eleven months’ imprisonment.
Personal factors
[47] Just before I turn to your personal factors, can I say, Mr Rauhihi, you are not the first and you will not be the last defendant who appears in this Court as someone who found themselves for the first time involved in serious offending, out of their depth and not knowing how to extricate themselves.
[48] That scenario can be recognised in the sentencing process. But of itself it does not impact on the fact that your role allowed very significant sums of methamphetamine and cocaine to hit the streets of Christchurch.
[49] There are no factors personal to you that aggravate your offending. But I accept there are a number of powerful personal mitigating factors that must be factored into your end sentence.
Guilty plea
[50] I have considered the detailed chronology provided by Ms Norrie, setting out the various events relevant to the entry of your guilty pleas. I am satisfied that from an early stage you made clear your intention to plead guilty as soon as disclosure was provided and the case against you had been sufficiently particularised. Whilst there was a delay in formalising the guilty pleas, I agree that a full guilty plea credit is available.
Personal and background circumstances
[51] Ms Norrie submits a deduction is appropriate to reflect those factors. That submission is founded on the material filed on your behalf, and particularly your affidavit, your partner’s affidavit, the pre-sentence report and an alcohol and drug report that, as I have said to counsel, to my mind, largely resembles a s 27 report, prepared by Dr Jarrod Gilbert. I do recognise your background circumstances have had an impact on your offending.
[52] The reports highlight the absence of your father during your childhood, your exposure to physical and emotional abuse as a child, to poverty, substance use, social isolation, cultural disconnection and a lack of qualifications. As I have acknowledged, you left school when you were aged 16. You believe your upbringing left you naïve and trusting of others as you wanted to be accepted.
[53] The report writers determined that your use of cocaine was linked to your offending as it was only offered to you in the course of offending and was used to help you stay awake during long truck driving shifts. I have some real doubts as to whether it has anything more than that factual link to your offending.
[54] In considering whether a sentence ought to be reduced to reflect personal background factors, the Court looks for a causal connection between the background
and the index offending. I accept there is some causal connection between your exposure to physical and emotional abuse as a child, financial hardships provided by your family, factors which you attempted to mitigate by securing and then remaining in employment with CANT0W. I also accept that what I would describe as a sheltered upbringing helps explain how and why you may have come to trust others and particularly Mr Harpur and feel a sense of loyalty to him. But I am not persuaded that your use of cocaine has any causal connection to your offending. It may have enabled your offending, but it did not cause it. I think a modest deduction is available to reflect your personal background.
Remorse, rehabilitative efforts, and contributions to the community
[55] There is no doubt that since your offending you have demonstrated significant and, what I accept is, genuine remorse as evidenced through the personal reflections you have shared in your affidavit about the social harm caused by drug offending and you have made an apology to the Court.
[56] You have deposed as to the steps you have taken since your arrest. That includes learning about the significant harm that drugs have on the community, particularly low socio-economic groups. In the past year, I am told you have engaged in just under 200 hours of volunteer work with Waka of Caring. You say that work has increased your humility and opened your eyes to the struggles people in the community face, and particularly how many of their struggles are fuelled by drug use and addiction. You express pride in being part of the founder’s mission to help the South Auckland community. And I do accept that through that work you made a valuable contribution to vulnerable people affected by the social harms of drug addiction and you have sought to make good the harm that your offending has caused to the community.
[57] Your remorse is also demonstrated in your completion of the Te Whare Tapa Whā drug programme. Your affidavit addresses how that programme has provided you valuable skills and has assisted you to remain drug free since your arrest in October 2023.
[58] Also since your arrest, you have completed an online parenting course and you have secured another full-time job.
[59] I agree that a deduction is appropriate to reflect your very real remorse, rehabilitative efforts and your community work.
Previous good character
[60] I have read no less than 19 references attesting to your good character. I am going to summarise them.
[61] Your partner describes you as easy-going, loyal and one of the hardest working people she knows. She says you work tirelessly to achieve your goals and provide for your family. She says you made a huge mistake, but this does not reflect who you really are. I will address what she says about you as a father separately.
[62] The founder of Waka of Caring, has provided a letter of support. She describes you as “on time, well presented and always polite”. She says that they have found you to be an asset and a hard worker. She says you have “developed a good relationship with not only our volunteers but to the whānau that comes in for help”. Initially you helped sort food for food parcels, hand out food parcels, unload vehicles and clean. For the last three months, you were responsible for the foodbank. The founder tells me that you did an amazing job, taking your role very seriously. She says she would welcome you back and expresses they would support you in whatever way they can.
[63] Since your arrest, you have secured full-time employment, working 50-60 hours a week at a freighting company. Your current manager tells me that you display strength of character through loyalty, respect and being courteous. You are willing to go above and beyond to assist with additional tasks and train and mentor other colleagues. He says it will be a major loss to the company if you are unable to continue in employment but says he would re-employ you if you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
[64] Your current team leader says you have a “great work ethic” and a willingness to help others. You are described as an “exceptional asset” to the team. A current
colleague, a person who describes herself as a friend of yours, says you are an “outstanding member of the team”. You are a “reliable and trustworthy member of staff who goes above and beyond to help [your] colleagues”. She says you believe the best in people and thinks this has clouded your judgment in the past. Another work colleague tells me that through working with you she has learnt of the “love and care [you have] for [your] whānau” and that you provide for your whānau with integrity.
[65] Your neighbour tells me you are a “kind, responsible, and respectful individual with strong family values.” She acknowledges your parenting and the positive influence you have on your daughter. She comments that her daughter spends time at your house even when she is not present.
[66] Your previous employer writes that you were “a very valued member of [their] team” and were “very mature, reliable, hard-working, professional, respected and personally a proud family man”.
[67] Different friends have provided references. You are described as a person who has “always been someone who cares deeply for his family, friends, and community.” That friend says this offending does not define you. He notes that you have “taken responsibility for your actions and expressed deep remorse, showing a sincere desire to make better choices moving forward.” Another friend writes that while working with you, you were “always eager to offer extra support” and were “dependable, trustworthy and reliable.” He says that watching you step into fatherhood, “it was clear it was meant to be”. He says your “family priorities are second to none”.
[68] Another friend tells me that throughout the time she has known you, you have “always been hardworking, positive and down-to-earth”. She says you have “always been a family man with the dream of being a truck driver to support [your] small family” and that it warms her knowing you are currently able to fulfil that dream. Another writes that you are a “kind, honourable, trustworthy, and devoted family man” and that she firmly believes your offending is out of character.
[69] Your mother tells me that your offending has “absolutely crushed” you. She says she believes you totally regret your actions and are disappointed in yourself. She
says you have gone out of your way to help and care for her, visiting her and checking on her frequently when she is struggling. She says you work “tirelessly to provide for [your] family”.
[70] Your sister expresses her support for you. She writes that you have “always looked out for [her]”, and that you’ve always helped when she needed it. She says you never disappoint or let her down because you have such “strong love, passion and reliability”. She writes that you are “a compassionate and friendly person who regularly pulls over on the side of the road to help those who are in need of mechanical help whether it be pouring with rain or scorching sun”.
[71] Another sister says you have “always been a big and important part” of her life. She says you taught her “good characteristics such as honestly, reliability and accountability” and she continues to learn accountability from you in the way you have shown remorse and a willingness to change following arrest. She says you are a “devoted brother, son, grandson, but most importantly, father and husband”.
[72] Your parents-in-law share that you have “always been loyal, supportive and caring towards [their daughter]”. They say family means a lot to you. They believe your offending was out of character.
[73] Your sister-in-law describes you as “hardworking, generous, family oriented and an overall honest kiwi bloke”. She highlights that “[e]ven during this challenging time, [you have] not faltered in putting [your] family and others first”.
[74] Your aunt says she has known you to be “a go-getter, trustworthy, reliable, caring and hardworking”. She recalls times you would source car parts for others so they did not get ripped off. You care about being genuine and fair. She says you initially did not share the details of your offending with your family. She believes you carry shame and humility. But you have now shared with the younger generation in your family as you want them to learn from your mistakes.
[75] Your grandfather tells me he is proud of how you have raised your own family. He shares that he will always stand by you. And your grandmother tells me that you
are “the most hardworking, gentle, loving person”. She writes that when you wanted to leave home, she said you had to get a job first, so you spent two days walking across South Auckland until you found one. She says your goal had always been to drive trucks, so you did a mechanics apprenticeship and ran the parts department until you became aware the company was importing inferior parts and selling them as genuine ones. At that point you reported them. You later became a truck driver and achieved your truck licences and goal of buying a house and having a baby. She says you are the “best partner and father and they have never wanted for anything”.
[76] Mr Rauhihi, these are all very powerful references from people who know you best. They outline a man with a strong work ethic, someone who is trustworthy, reliable and someone for whom family is a priority. They reinforce to me that this offending was very much out of character for you and they are entirely consistent with the rehabilitative steps you have taken to ensure you do not offend again. You should never underestimate the good fortune of being surrounded by loving family and whānau who support you. I am satisfied that a deduction is available to reflect your previous good character.
Parental incarceration
[77] Sentence deductions for parental incarceration may be appropriate where a sentence of imprisonment may result in a disproportionately harmful outcome for an offender’s family and in particular, dependent children.
[78] As I have acknowledged, you have been with your partner for 16 years. Together you have a four-year-old daughter. You refer in your affidavit at length to your relationship with your daughter. You describe it as incredibly important to you, reflecting that you grew up without a father figure in your life. You describe the close relationship you have with your daughter and the extensive activities with which you engage with her. You tell me that both she and your partner are your pillars of strength, people who inspire you to do better. You express concern that your daughter is at a crucial development stage where emotional stability, consistency and caregiving are important. You worry about the disruptions to her environment if you are imprisoned.
It is very evident to me that you care deeply for your daughter and that you have a very strong bond with her.
[79] Your partner deposes that you are a “devoted partner and, above all, an amazing, hands-on father”. She too talks of the close bond you have with your daughter and how your daughter adores you. Your partner says she is heartbroken at the possibility of not having you around to watch your daughter grow or achieve your family goals together. She tells me your daughter does not cope well with change and when you spent an initial period of time in custody, she became unsettled. She said that your daughter needs you in her life.
[80] There is no dispute that a deduction is appropriate to reflect the consequences of parental incarceration.21
Overall mitigating factors
[81] So where does that leave the Court in terms of the mitigating factors? It is well established that an offender may present with a combination of personal mitigating factors which may collectively justify a sentence substantially less than that which would otherwise be imposed.22 While discounts of 70 per cent or more are generally considered to be the upper range,23 the Court of Appeal has said that the Court need to be careful not to “attempt to place a cap on the total discounts that are available when sentencing an offender”.24
[82] As is clear, I agree with your counsel, and it is not disputed by the Crown, that you present with powerful mitigating factors. Those factors do, to an extent overlap. In those circumstances I think it is best to take a global approach. For all mitigating factors I assess the appropriate total deduction to be one of 70 per cent. On any view, that is a significant deduction.
[83]That leads me to a sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment.
21 Philip v R [2022] NZSC 149, [2022] 1 NZLR 571.
22 Dickey v R [2023] NZCA 2, (2023) 34 FRNZ 555 at [175].
23 See McCaslin-Whitehead v R [2023] NZCA 259; and Stehlin v R [2022] NZCA 453 at [60]–[62].
24 Stehlin v R, above n 25, at [44].
Time spent on EM Bail
[84] Finally, you are entitled under the Sentencing Act to recognition for the time you have spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail. You were initially in custody for a period of 24 days and have since been on EM bail for period of over 500 days. You have been subject to a 24-hour curfew but with permitted absences that have allowed you to undertake full-time work, rehabilitative programmes and the voluntary work I have outlined. You were also authorised to attend specified family events and excursions, so it was not particularly restrictive EM bail.
[85] In those circumstances, I assess a deduction of 30 per cent of that time, or five months’ is appropriate. That reduces the end sentence to one of two years and eleven months’ imprisonment. As you will be aware, that is not a sentence that permits the Court to consider a sentence of home detention.
[86] Ms Norrie has said everything that could be said on your behalf to persuade me that there is a principled basis for the Court to impose a sentence short of a full-time custodial sentence. But having very carefully reflected on what I assess to be your culpability and notwithstanding the powerful mitigating factors, I am not persuaded on that on a principled basis I can go below the sentence of two years and eleven months’ imprisonment.
Result
[87]Will you please stand.
[88] Mr Rauhihi, on each of the charges of supplying methamphetamine, supplying cocaine, possession of methamphetamine for supply, and possessing cocaine for supply, you are sentenced to two years and eleven months’ imprisonment. Each sentence will be sentenced concurrently.
[89] I had granted you leave earlier to appear at sentencing via AVL from the Auckland High Court. Earlier this week I was advised that the necessary facilities were not available to allow you to appear remotely. Following a telephone conference with Ms Norrie, and Mr Stuart, on behalf of the Crown, the alternatives were
discussed. At that conference I indicated that if I was to sentence you to a term of imprisonment, I would exercise my discretion under s 100(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002 to defer the start date in the event that you travelled to Christchurch to appear in person at sentencing so as to allow you to return to Auckland to surrender and commence your sentence of imprisonment.
[90] I now exercise that discretion. The start date of your sentence is deferred until 12 noon, next Monday, 24 March 2025. At that time, you are to surrender to the custody of Mt Eden Prison. In the meantime, you will remain on electronically monitored bail.
[91]You may stand down.
...................................................
Eaton J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors, Christchurch
Counsel:
S R Norrie, Barrister, Auckland
Addendum
[92] Shortly after the sentencing on 21 March, my attention was drawn to a mathematical error. From a starting point of ten years and ten months’ imprisonment and allowing a global deduction of 70 per cent and a further five months for time spent on EM bail, the end sentence is one of two years and ten months’ imprisonment not two years and eleven months. And so the two years and ten months’ imprisonment is the sentence that I impose on all charges.
10
0