R v Rewita - [2016] NZHC 2523

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2015-063-002651 [2016] NZHC 2523

THE QUEEN

v

TAI ANTHONY REWITA STEFAN ISAAC EDE ANDREW CROMBIE

Hearing: 21 October 2016

Counsel:

A D Hill for the Crown

W T Nabney for the Defendant, Rewita A M M Schulze for the Defendant, Ede C D Bean for the Defendant, Crombie

Sentence:

21 October 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF EDWARDS J

Counsel: W T Nabney, Tauranga
C D Bean, Hamilton

Solicitors: Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua
Lance Lawson, Rotorua

R v REWITA, EDE and CROMBIE [2016] NZHC 2523 [21 October 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Rewita, Mr Ede and Mr Crombie, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty on a number of charges following a jury trial in this Court.

[2] Mr Rewita you appear for sentence on:

(a) Five charges of supplying methamphetamine. Those charges carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment;

(b)One charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply. That charge also carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment; and

(c) One charge of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine. That charge

carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

[3] Mr Ede you appear for sentence on:

(a) Two charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply; and

(b) One charge of possession of cannabis for sale. The cannabis charge

has a maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment.

[4] Mr Crombie you appear for sentence on one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.

[5] It has been said by countless Judges before me, but I repeat it here again, that dealing in methamphetamine is dealing in human misery. It brings destruction and despair to families and communities and causes widespread harm to all parts of New Zealand society.

Offending

[6] I turn to summarise the offending the subject of your convictions.

[7] The charges arose out of a police investigation code-named “Operation Ice Road”. Mr Rewita was the central figure in that investigation and the police intercepted a number of telephone calls and text messages between Mr Rewita and his associates.

[8] In the early hours of 2 May 2015, Mr Rewita and Mr Ede exchanged text messages arranging to meet. One of those text messages referred to “two hours” which the jury must have accepted was code for two ounces of methamphetamine. Mr Rewita was convicted of supply of methamphetamine and Mr Ede was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for supply arising out of that offending.

[9] Later in the day Mr Rewita’s vehicle was stopped during a routine stop. Large sums of cash were found in Mr Rewita’s car and in Mr Rewita’s bag, together with small plastic bags and a set of electronic scales. Three bags of methamphetamine were found totalling 2.94 grams. Mr Rewita was convicted of possession for the purposes of supply for that offending. Mr Rewita was found not guilty of a further supply charge based on the amount of cash found during this search.

[10] Between 7 and 8 May 2015 a series of text messages were sent…

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 Rewita

Details

AGLC: R v Rewita [2016] NZHC 2523
Case: [2016] NZHC 2523
Decision Date: 21 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rewita involved sentencing for three defendants who had been found guilty of various drug-related charges. Tai Anthony Rewita was found guilty of multiple charges of supplying and possessing methamphetamine for supply, as well as conspiracy to supply methamphetamine. Stefan Isaac Ede was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for supply and possession of cannabis for sale. Andrew Crombie was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for supply. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentences for each defendant, taking into account the severity of their offending, their personal circumstances, and the principles of accountability, deterrence, and denunciation.

The court began by setting a starting point for each defendant based on the quantity of drugs involved and the nature of their offending. Rewita's starting point was set at eight and a half years' imprisonment due to the scale and commercial nature of his offending. Ede's starting point was set at five and a half years' imprisonment, while Crombie's starting point was set at four years' imprisonment. The court then considered personal aggravating and mitigating factors for each defendant before imposing final sentences. Rewita was sentenced to eight and a half years' imprisonment, Ede was sentenced to five years and eight months' imprisonment, and Crombie was sentenced to four years and three months' imprisonment. The court also considered the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment but decided against it for each defendant.

In conclusion, the High Court of New Zealand Rotorua Registry imposed sentences on the three defendants for their drug-related convictions. The sentences were determined based on the severity of the offending, personal circumstances, and the principles of accountability, deterrence, and denunciation. Rewita received an eight and a half-year imprisonment sentence, Ede received a five years and eight months imprisonment sentence, and Crombie received a four years and three months imprisonment sentence. The court did not impose a minimum period of imprisonment for any of the defendants.

Orders