R v Te Awa - [2014] NZHC 65

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-055-04249

CRI-2013-055-00700 [2014] NZHC 65

THE QUEEN

v

PARAIRE HORI TAMA WEHI TE AWA DEAN MICHAEL ADDISON

Hearing: 5 February 2014

Appearances: K Raftery and A Pollett for Crown
PJ Kaye for Te Awa
M Ryan and B Meyer for Addison

Sentence: 5 February 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v TE AWA & ADDISON [2014] NZHC 65 [5 February 2014]

[1] Paraire Hori Tama Wehi Te Awa, you appear for sentence having been convicted by a jury of kidnapping and murder. Dean Michael Addison, you are for sentence for kidnapping and also on one count of supplying methamphetamine and also on one count of possessing pseudoephedrine for the purpose of manufacture.

Background facts

Dean Addison

[2] In June 2012, Mr Addison, you were dealing at and just above street level in methamphetamine. I am satisfied that your conviction by the jury on the count of supplying methamphetamine was genuinely representative of significant dealing activity. It is clear from the text messages involving you that you were dealing in drugs, and by that I mean drugs like methamphetamine and pseudoephedrine, on a regular basis. That was confirmed by the Crown’s principal witness, Mr Rigby, who was your runner. Other witnesses gave evidence of the many people who called at your work place in Papakura to purchase methamphetamine. I consider it well established, therefore, that you were dealing commercially in methamphetamine, albeit at a retail rather than wholesale level.

[3] I am satisfied also that you were involved in receiving pseudoephedrine for manufacture and that the one incident of possession relied upon by the Crown was not an isolated incident. As Mr Raftery submitted to the jury at the time of your trial, the evidence established that you were in possession of pseudoephedrine on at least two other occasions in June and July 2012.

[4] As is so often the case, however, your drug dealing got you into financial strife. You had received from your wife’s best friend, Rae Portman, a set of ContacNT containing pseudoephedrine valued at $9,000. It was intended by Ms Portman and you that the pseudoephedrine would be turned into methamphetamine from which Ms Portman was due to receive $14,000, thereby giving her a profit of $5,000. No doubt you would have benefited also in the transaction, probably by receiving a quantity of methamphetamine which you could then sell.

[5] For reasons which were not disclosed at your trial, Ms Portman began pressuring you, on 16 June 2012, to either return the pseudoephedrine to her or pay her the $14,000 she was expecting to receive. I should say at this point that I disregard for the purposes of sentencing Mr Te Awa, the suggestion in your pre- sentence report that you had in fact given the drugs to him. You did not have the drugs or the money, and the text messages between your wife and you provided clear evidence of the extreme pressure Ms Portman’s demands…

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 Te Awa

Details

AGLC: R v Te Awa [2014] NZHC 65
Case: [2014] NZHC 65
Decision Date: 5 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved the sentencing of Paraire Te Awa and Dean Addison for their roles in the kidnapping and murder of Rae Portman. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, heard the case and delivered its judgment on 5 February 2014. Dean Addison was convicted of kidnapping and murder, while Paraire Te Awa was convicted of kidnapping and the supply of methamphetamine. The legal issues in the case centered on the purposes and principles of sentencing, the gravity of the offending, and the culpability of the offenders. The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the impact on the victims and their families, the personal circumstances of the offenders, and the totality approach to sentencing.

The court held both offenders accountable for their actions, taking into account the harm done to the victims and the community. It emphasized the need to denounce their conduct, deter others from similar offending, and protect the community from them. The court also considered the effect of the offending on the victims, particularly the impact on Rae Portman's family. The judge noted that while the kidnapping itself was a serious offence, the murder of Rae Portman and her unborn child elevated the gravity of the offending. The court found that Paraire Te Awa presented a high risk of reoffending due to his criminal history and lack of remorse, while Dean Addison's drug abuse was a significant factor in his offending.

The court sentenced Dean Addison to 12 years' imprisonment for kidnapping, with a minimum period of six years, and four years for supplying methamphetamine, with an additional two years for possessing a precursor substance. All sentences were to be served concurrently, resulting in an effective end sentence of 12 years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of six years. Paraire Te Awa was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, with a minimum period of 21 years, and nine years for kidnapping, to be served concurrently. The court emphasized that Paraire Te Awa would only be considered for parole after serving the minimum period and that his release would depend on the Parole Board's assessment of his risk to the community.

Orders