R v Thai

Case [2021] NZHC 1006 6 May 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-004-8295

[2021] NZHC 1006

THE QUEEN

v

THE-HOANG THAI ISIAH JOHN TE-HIRA

Hearing: 6 May 2021

Counsel:

H D L Steele for Crown

J-A Kincade QC and A Shendi for Mr Thai M N Pecotic for Mr Te-Hira

Sentence:

6 May 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland J-A Kincade QC, Auckland M N Pecotic Auckland

R v THAI [2021] NZHC 1006 [6 May 2021]

Introduction

[1] The-Hoang Thai, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty on 29 January 2021 to two charges of possessing methamphetamine for supply.1 Isaiah John Te-Hira, you appear having pleaded guilty on the same date to one charge of importing methamphetamine into New Zealand and one charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply.2 The maximum penalty on each of those charges is life imprisonment.

[2] In sentencing you, I accept as proved the essential facts that are set out in the agreed summary to which you pleaded.3

Background

[3] Mr Thai, you are a 25-year-old Canadian national. You arrived in New Zealand on 11 July 2018 on a three-month visitor visa and you remained in New Zealand illegally. Mr Te-Hira, you are a 32-year-old New Zealander. At the time of your arrest you were living in Auckland and were employed by an earthworks company.

[4] I need to explain the circumstances of your offending, so that people will understand the basis on which I am sentencing you.

[5] In 2019, the New Zealand Customs Service (Customs) initiated ‘Operation Manta’ to investigate the suspected importation of controlled drugs through a New Zealand-based business, NZ Importing Group Limited.

[6] On 18 August 2019, a sea freight container arrived in New Zealand from Bangkok Thailand, on a commercial sea vessel, and was allocated a Customs import entry number. The import was declared as comprising 60 electric motors, with a gross weight of nearly 25 tonnes. A delivery address had been provided to the logistics company four days prior to the arrival of the import in New Zealand.

[7] On 19 August 2019, Customs examined the import and found 469 kilograms of methamphetamine hidden within the 60 motors. As part of a controlled delivery,

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(a).
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(a).
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 24(1).

Customs replaced most of the methamphetamine with a placebo substance before clearing the consignment for release to the importer together with a presumptive amount of methamphetamine.

[8] On 27 August 2019, the import was collected and transported to a freight- forwarding facility in Wiri, Auckland, in accordance with instructions received from the logistics company that unwittingly facilitated the importation. The logistics company provided the freight forwarder with the delivery address, a remote rural property at Mangatawhiri, south of Auckland.

[9] Mr Thai, on 29 August 2019 the freight-forwarder arranged with you for the import to be delivered to the…

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 Thai

Details

AGLC: R v Thai [2021] NZHC 1006
Case: [2021] NZHC 1006
Decision Date: 6 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The-Hoang Thai and Isaiah John Te-Hira were sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for their involvement in a methamphetamine importation and supply scheme. Thai, a Canadian national, was found guilty of possessing methamphetamine for supply, while Te-Hira, a New Zealander, was found guilty of importing methamphetamine into New Zealand and possessing it for supply. The court accepted the essential facts of the case, which involved the importation of 469 kilograms of methamphetamine hidden within electric motors from Bangkok, Thailand, into New Zealand. The drugs were intercepted by Customs during a controlled delivery and replaced with a placebo substance.

The court considered the purposes of sentencing, including holding the offenders accountable, denouncing their conduct, deterring similar offences, and assisting their rehabilitation. The court also took into account the relevant sentencing principles, such as the gravity of the offending, the offenders' personal circumstances, and the desirability of consistency with sentences imposed on similar offenders.

The court imposed a starting point for Thai of 33 years' imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of his involvement as a "trusted lieutenant" in the drug importation operation. The court discounted the sentence by 37.5%, resulting in an effective sentence of 20 years and 6 months' imprisonment. For Te-Hira, the court imposed a starting point of 28 years' imprisonment, acknowledging his opportunistic involvement in the drug importation. The court discounted the sentence by 40%, resulting in an effective sentence of 16 years and 9 months' imprisonment, including an allowance of 9 months for the time spent on electronic monitoring bail.

The court declined to impose a minimum period of imprisonment, leaving the determination of the minimum period to the discretion of the Parole Board. The court also ordered the destruction of the seized methamphetamine, materials and equipment used for supply, and the forfeiture of the cash found at the offenders' residences.

Orders