R v Tali

Case [2022] NZHC 2181 30 August 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

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

CRI-2021-008-2754

[2022] NZHC 2181

THE QUEEN

v

LEVI EVAN TALI

Date of hearing: 30 August 2022

Appearances:

M Smith and N Jamieson for the Crown A Hill for the Defendant

Date of Minute:

30 August 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF POWELL J

R v TALI [2022] NZHC 2181 [30 August 2022]

[1]Levi Tali, you come up for sentence today on the following charges:

(a)Supplying methamphetamine;1

(b)Offering to supply methamphetamine;2 and

(c)Participating in an organised criminal group.3

[2] For the purposes of this sentencing, I rely on the summary of facts provided by Police, which your counsel Mr Hill has confirmed that you have accepted.

The offending

[3] In March 2021, Police commenced an investigation targeting individuals involved in the regular supply of illegal drugs to the Northland community. The investigation began after a number of illegal drug importations destined for Northland addresses were intercepted and, for a period spanning from March 2020 to November 2021, Police looked at the offending committed by a group of persons linked either through family contacts or their association with the Headhunters Motorcycle Gang.

[4] To get a regular supply of drugs into the Northland community, the group would either import methamphetamine, manufacture it themselves in Northland or buy drug products wholesale and sell them at a higher price. The primary drug involved in this offending was methamphetamine.

[5] There is no doubt that the group’s operations were significant. It was a significant commercial enterprise. New Zealand Customs identified some 23 instances of drug importation associated with the group. Generally, the drugs were sent to addresses linked to a member of the group, with false names and phone numbers used. The total amount of methamphetamine identified across these importations was some 20 kilograms, with a street value of around $5,000,000. While you are not alleged to have been involved with the details of the importation and do

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A. Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

not face any charges in relation to that, it does provide some insight into the scale of the operation that you were involved in.

[6] As I have noted, the group also undertook activity to manufacture methamphetamine on several occasions and ultimately some 2.5 kilograms was produced, with more being prevented by a lack of iodine. It appears that your role in respect of that offending was as a “runner”, liaising between members of the group in more senior roles and taking “stuff” between houses and people.

[7] A key part of the group’s enterprise was the ongoing acquisition and supply of methamphetamine, where your role was to uplift and move drugs and money at the direction of the leader of the group, Kauri Kerr. You also completed other tasks at the direction of senior group members,…

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 Tali

Details

AGLC: R v Tali [2022] NZHC 2181
Case: [2022] NZHC 2181
Decision Date: 30 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Levi Evan Tali was sentenced by Powell J in the High Court of New Zealand for supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine, and for participating in an organised criminal group. The court heard that Tali was involved in a significant drug supply operation in Northland, where he played a minor role as a runner for the group, which was linked to the Headhunters Motorcycle Gang. Tali was involved in the group from August to November 2021, and was charged with supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine, as well as participating in an organised criminal group.

The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of Tali's offending, and determined that a starting point of two and a half years' imprisonment was appropriate. The court noted that Tali had a minor role within the group, and did not receive significant financial benefits from his involvement. The court also considered Tali's personal circumstances, including his guilty pleas, his efforts to leave his criminal past behind, and his prospects of rehabilitation. The court allowed discounts of 5% for remorse, 15% for prospects of rehabilitation, and 25% for his guilty pleas, resulting in an adjusted sentence of 16 and a half months' imprisonment. However, because Tali's sentence was a short sentence of imprisonment, home detention was an option. The court accepted that Tali's partner and her family, who reside at the proposed address for home detention, were suitable for the purposes of home detention, and that Tali had shown commitment to rehabilitation. The court therefore sentenced Tali to eight months' home detention, with conditions set out in the Provision of Advice to the Court memorandum, together with a further condition permitting him to continue his employment as approved by the Department of Corrections. Tali was also sentenced to six months' home detention on each of the methamphetamine charges, to be served concurrently, resulting in a total sentence of eight months' home detention.

The court's approach to sentencing Tali was guided by the purposes and principles of sentencing set out in the Sentencing Act. The court held that the primary purposes of sentencing in this case were to hold Tali accountable for the harm that he had done, to denounce the conduct that he had been involved in, and to deter him and others from committing similar offences in the future. The court also considered the gravity of Tali's offending and his degree of culpability, as well as the need for his sentence to be consistent with other similar cases. The court imposed the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances, and considered the availability of home detention as an alternative to imprisonment.

Orders