R v Ririnui - [2012] NZHC 3053

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2012-070-4640 [2012] NZHC 3053

THE QUEEN

v

HEMIONA WILLIAM RIRINUI

Hearing: 16 November 2012 (Heard at Rotorua)

Counsel: R W Jenson for the Crown
G C McArthur for Mr Ririnui

Judgment: 16 November 2012

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors / Counsel:
Mr R W Jenson, Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Mr G C McArthur, Barrister, Tauranga

R V RIRINUI HC TAU CRI-2012-070-4640 [16 November 2012]

[1] Mr Ririnui, you may remain seated while I explain the sentence I am going to impose – and it will be a sentence of imprisonment, as you will, I am sure, have realised.

[2] You appear for sentence on four charges to which you have pleaded guilty:

(a) Cultivating cannabis with a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.

(b)Possession of cannabis for supply with a maximum penalty of 8 years imprisonment.

(c) Conspiracy to supply cannabis with a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.

(d)Participating in an organised criminal group which has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

Facts

[3] A short outline of the facts is as follows. On 8 November 2011 you were sentenced to imprisonment for a total of 1 year and 6 months for two offences committed in 2010 of selling cannabis. Police obtained recorded conversations between you, while you were in prison, and your partner, Nikki Whare. Ms Whare is a co-accused. The recorded conversations were in March and April 2012. These conversations establish that, with the assistance of Ms Whare, you were involved in organising the harvesting, processing and supply of cannabis or particularly the harvesting and processing. This was being done with others who have also been charged.

[4] You accept that the total amount of cannabis head that had been harvested weighed around 14 pounds and had a commercial value of around $28,000. The Crown has information indicating that the quantity may have been more but on this

sentencing it is not in a position to prove that the commercial quantity available for sale was more than 14 pounds and accepts the $28,000 figure although there is evidence that it could be higher. I emphasise that these are factual conclusions for the purpose of your sentencing, and I say that because there are others who are still facing charges.

[5] Your instructions to Mr McArthur, who appears on your behalf, are that the cannabis had been planted before you went into prison in November 2011. You also instructed Mr McArthur that the harvest was to be distributed three ways. You also claim that half of your share was to be sold and you were going to keep the other half for your own consumption. But I treat that with a degree of scepticism.

Personal factors

[6] You are aged 29. You and your partner and co-accused, Ms Whare, have been in a partnership for approximately 10 years and have three children.

[7] The probation officer says that you expressed remorse and said…

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 Ririnui

Details

AGLC: R v Ririnui [2012] NZHC 3053
Case: [2012] NZHC 3053
Decision Date: 16 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry, heard the case of The Queen v Hemiona William Ririnui. The defendant, Ririnui, faced sentencing on four charges to which he had pleaded guilty: cultivating cannabis, possession of cannabis for supply, conspiracy to supply cannabis, and participating in an organised criminal group. Each charge carried a maximum penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment. The legal issues before the court involved determining an appropriate sentence, considering the nature and seriousness of the offences, the defendant's prior criminal history, and factors such as remorse and the involvement of firearms.

The court assessed the gravity of the offences, placing the cultivation of cannabis as the lead offence. The starting point for the sentence was determined to be within a range of 2 to 4 years, aligning with category 2 as outlined in the Court of Appeal decision in Terewi. The court acknowledged the defendant's involvement in a small-scale operation, without sophisticated organisation. The Crown argued for a higher starting point due to the presence of firearms, which the court did not accept based on the available evidence. The starting point for cultivation of cannabis was set at 2 years 8 months. An additional 12 months was added for the other offences and previous convictions, resulting in a total of 3 years 8 months. The court granted a 20% reduction for early guilty pleas, bringing the sentence to 2 years 11 months. Considering the previous sentence, which had expired, the final sentence imposed was 2 years 6 months.

The court imposed a sentence of 2 years 6 months imprisonment for cultivating cannabis and for possession of cannabis for supply, and concurrent sentences of 2 years imprisonment for conspiracy to supply and participation in an organised criminal group, all to be served concurrently. The judge emphasised the importance of the defendant's expressions of remorse and hoped this sentence would provide an opportunity for him to turn his life around.

Orders