R v Tawa - [2021] NZHC 2091

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-063-003188

[2021] NZHC 2091

THE QUEEN

v

TE AWATEA O POUTUTERANGI AHUMAI TAWA

Hearing: 12 August 2021

Counsel:

S J Bird for Crown

N Tahana for defendant

Judgment:

12 August 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF KATZ J

Solicitors:Gordon Pilditch, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Rotorua Kahui Legal, Rotorua

R v TAWA [2021] NZHC 2091 [12 August 2021]

[1] Te Awatea Tawa, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply. 1 You appear today for sentence. The maximum penalty for possessing methamphetamine for the purposes of supply is life imprisonment.

The offending

[2] On 29 September 2020, police executed a search warrant at the home of your cousin. You were staying there at the time. Police located you in a bedroom of the house. They searched your bag and found 6.5 grams of methamphetamine, as well as
$3,300 in cash.

What is the appropriate starting point?

[3]The first stage in the sentencing process is to set a starting point.

[4] The guideline judgment for cases of methamphetamine offending is the Court of Appeal decision in Zhang v R.2 Band 2 of Zhang covers methamphetamine dealing where the amount of methamphetamine involved is between five and 250 grams. The Court of Appeal has suggested a starting point of between two and nine years’ imprisonment for offending in Band 2.

[5] Where someone falls within the Band 2 range depends on their role in the offending and also the amount of drugs involved. In this case it is not possible to say with any certainty what your role in the drug operation was. I therefore proceed on the basis that your role was a low level one. Furthermore, the amount of methamphetamine involved was very much at the lower end of the Band 2 range. I therefore set your starting point at the lowest end of the Band 2 range, which is two years’ imprisonment.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a).
2 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648.

Adjustments to the starting point for personal circumstances

[6] I now turn to consider what adjustments need to be made to that starting point to reflect your personal circumstances.

Guilty plea

[7] You are entitled to a discount for your guilty plea. You were arrested on 29 September 2020. You sought a sentence indication on 23 March 2021, the day prior to a case review hearing in the District Court. At the case review hearing on 24 March, Judge M A MacKenzie noted that the matter may be transferred to the High Court, and deferred a decision on your request for a sentence indication until your next court appearance on 24 May 2021. On 31 May 2021, you intimated a guilty plea and were subsequently arraigned and pleaded guilty on 8 June 2021.

[8] You therefore pleaded guilty about…

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 Tawa

Details

AGLC: R v Tawa [2021] NZHC 2091
Case: [2021] NZHC 2091
Decision Date: 12 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Te Awatea Tawa was sentenced for possession of methamphetamine with intent to supply. The court found Tawa guilty of possessing 6.5 grams of methamphetamine, along with $3,300 in cash, during a police search at her cousin's home. The legal issues included determining an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering personal circumstances, and deciding on the appropriate sentence type. The court considered Tawa's low-level role in the drug operation and the amount of drugs involved, setting the starting point at two years' imprisonment. Tawa's personal circumstances, including her background of social and economic deprivation, her history of methamphetamine addiction, and her rehabilitative efforts, were taken into account. However, the court found Tawa's assertions about her lack of knowing possession of the drugs inconsistent with genuine remorse. The court imposed a sentence of 18 months' intensive supervision, considering it the least restrictive option that met the purposes of accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and community protection.

Final orders: Te Awatea Tawa is sentenced to 18 months' intensive supervision, with special conditions as recommended in the pre-sentence report.

Orders