R v Taihia - [2014] NZHC 2811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-225 [2014] NZHC 2811

THE QUEEN

v

ADRIAN TOA TAIHIA

Hearing: 30 October 2014

Appearances:

E J McCaughan for the Crown
P J B Winter for the Defendant

Sentencing:

30 October 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF THOMAS J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland.

Counsel:
P Winters, Auckland.

R v TAIHIA [2014] NZHC 2811 [30 October 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Taihia, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one representative charge of manufacturing the Class A drug, methamphetamine.

[2] The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.1

Facts

[3] The facts are that between 10 December 2011 and 23 February 2012, you assisted Mr Davoren and other associates to manufacture an unidentified amount of methamphetamine on three different occasions. On the first occasion of 10
December 2011, you encouraged Mr Davoren to manufacture an undetermined amount of methamphetamine. On 19 January 2012, you assisted Mr Davoren by receiving an undetermined amount of pseudoephedrine from him and acting as its custodian. You also agreed to bring oil to Mr Davoren to assist the manufacturing process. On 23 February 2012, you allowed Mr Davoren and associates to use your premises for the purpose of converting pseudoephedrine into methamphetamine.

Personal circumstances

[4] You have 10 previous convictions. None are relevant to the present offending. You are 32 years old and live with your wife and three children, aged eight, six and four. You have a son from a previous relationship. You did work part time as a shrink wrapper and you are a part time professional boxer. You are currently a multiple division champion and the holder of four New Zealand as well as World boxing titles.

[5] You told the writer of the pre-sentence report that around the time of your offending, your mother in law, who played a big part in your life, passed away. You needed money to pay for her funeral. You approached Mr Davoren because you knew he had money and was involved in drugs to some extent. You admit that you
encouraged Mr Davoren to manufacture methamphetamine because you needed

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2)(a).

money quickly, as your mother-in-law’s funeral was three days away. You said that you held a bag of pseudoephedrine and dropped it off somewhere else for Mr Davoren, because you had to pay back money you had borrowed from him. You let Mr Davoren use your house to manufacture methamphetamine in February because you still owed money to him. You admit you knew what you were doing was wrong, but were under the pressure of debt.

[6] You expressed remorse and regret for your actions. The report writer identifies that you have no rehabilitative needs. The underlying factor in your offending was your susceptibility to financial pressures and lack of ability to make sound judgements in such situations. You are assessed as being at a low to medium likelihood of reoffending and a medium risk of harm. The report writer recommends a sentence of…

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 Taihia

Details

AGLC: R v Taihia [2014] NZHC 2811
Case: [2014] NZHC 2811
Decision Date: 30 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Taihia, the defendant, Adrian Toa Taihia, was sentenced for his involvement in the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class A drug. The court acknowledged Taihia's guilty plea and his limited involvement in the drug manufacturing operation, which assisted in determining a starting point for sentencing at three years' imprisonment. The court recognised mitigating factors such as the absence of aggravating features and Taihia's remorse, which led to a 10 per cent discount for his guilty plea. The court, however, found that the circumstances did not warrant a further discount, leading to a final sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment. This decision balanced the personal circumstances of Taihia with the need to send a message about the seriousness of drug manufacturing offences.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate starting point for sentencing and the extent of any discount that should be applied for Taihia's guilty plea and other mitigating factors. The court considered the absence of aggravating features, Taihia's limited involvement, and his remorse, but ultimately determined that these factors did not warrant a significant reduction from the starting point. The court also examined Taihia's bail conditions and previous convictions, concluding that they did not justify a substantial discount. The court's reasoning was influenced by relevant case law, including the Supreme Court decision in Hessell v R, which guides the consideration of genuine remorse.

The court's reasoning was meticulous in balancing the mitigating factors with the need for deterrence and denunciation. It rejected the defence's submission for a more significant discount, noting that such a reduction would send an inappropriate message regarding the seriousness of drug manufacturing offences. The court also highlighted the harm caused by Taihia's actions, particularly given his status as a role model in the community. Despite the mitigating factors, the court concluded that a discount of two months was appropriate, resulting in a final sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment. This outcome reflects the court's intent to address both the culpability of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender.

Orders