R v Taui

Case [2021] NZHC 2123 13 August 2021

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2019-085-001094

[2021] NZHC 2123

THE QUEEN

v

ROBERT JASON TAUI

Hearing: 13 August 2021

Counsel:

G J Burston for the Crown E Huda for Mr Taui

Sentencing:

13 August 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF GWYN J

Introduction

[1] Robert Jason Taui, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to seven charges in total: four charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply;1 one charge of possession of cannabis for supply;2 unlawful possession of a pistol;3 and unlawful possession of ammunition.4

[2] In sentencing you today, I apply a law called the Sentencing Act, which sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing. The purpose of sentencing in your case is to hold you accountable for the harm you have done to the community through your

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(c); maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.
3      Arms Act 1983, s 50(1)(a); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment or $4,000 fine.
4      Section 45(1); maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment or $5,000 fine.

R v TAUI [2021] NZHC 2123 [13 August 2021]

offending; to promote a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgment of, that harm; to denounce and deter the criminal conduct; to protect the community; and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into society.5 What that means in practice is that I have to look at the whole situation and do what I can to mark what you have done, but also to acknowledge who you are and your particular circumstances and background.

[3] I will first set out your offending, explain your personal circumstances, and set out counsel’s submissions. I will then calculate a sentence by adopting a two-step approach: first, I set a starting point based on the offending. At that stage I will talk about a case called Zhang v R, which is what we call a “guideline” judgment for offences involving methamphetamine,6 and other cases which are similar. Second, I will apply uplifts and discounts to reflect your personal aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Finally, I will consider whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment.

The offending

[4] All seven charges result from two police investigations into an operation that supplied methamphetamine in the Auckland and Wellington regions – Operation Superdry in relation to Wellington-based offending, and Operation Maddale in relation to Auckland-based offending. Your co-offender, Mr McMillan, was the main individual targeted in the Wellington-based offending. You purchased methamphetamine from Mr McMillan. Your charges all result from Operation Superdry.

[5] All four methamphetamine charges arise from offending that occurred between March and May 2019, when you and Mr McMillan exchanged methamphetamine for cash, primarily by way of “dead drops” in a carpark in Wellington. Following a disputed facts hearing, I found you purchased a total of 1.524 kilograms of methamphetamine from Mr McMillan.7 The Crown says this amount of

5 Sentencing Act 2002, s 7.

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 Taui

Details

AGLC: R v Taui [2021] NZHC 2123
Case: [2021] NZHC 2123
Decision Date: 13 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Robert Jason Taui, was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand after pleading guilty to seven charges, including possession of methamphetamine for supply, possession of cannabis for supply, and unlawful possession of a pistol and ammunition. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence that reflected the defendant's criminal history, personal circumstances, and the nature of his offending. The legal issues involved setting a starting point based on the offending, applying uplifts and discounts to reflect personal aggravating and mitigating factors, and deciding whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment. The court found that the defendant played a significant role in the drug supply operation, leading to a starting point of 12 years, six months’ imprisonment. The court imposed an uplift of one year for the defendant's extensive criminal history but granted a 15 per cent discount for his guilty plea. A 20 per cent discount was applied for personal mitigating factors, including the defendant's background, addiction issues, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court decided against imposing a minimum period of imprisonment, allowing the defendant to be eligible for parole after serving one-third of his sentence. The final orders included a sentence of nine years, one month imprisonment for the methamphetamine charges, and one year, six months’ imprisonment for the firearms and cannabis charges, to be served concurrently. Additionally, the court ordered the destruction of drug-related items and controlled drugs seized during the investigation.

Orders