R v Thai
[2021] NZHC 1006
•6 May 2021
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 Mangatawhiri address the following day. On 30 August 2019, you purchased four large suitcases and took them to an apartment in the Guardian Trust building on Queen Street, Auckland.
[10] That day, the freight-forwarder delivered the import to the Mangatawhiri address through three separate truck loads. Those loads were delivered to an area at the address consisting of a gravel area surrounded by dense bush. The existing structures there included two shipping containers with a make-shift roof spanning them.
[11] Mr Te-Hira, an associate (TH) and you were at Mangatawhiri throughout the delivery of the import. You helped to unload and store the electric motors in one of the shipping containers. During the delivery, Police intercepted multiple phone conversations between the two of you and TH. Those conversations included discussions about storing the electric motors for a few days before opening and discarding them. It was evident that you knew the motors contained something illegal and that you, Mr Thai, were taking instructions from a third party named ‘Lucky’ and passing those instructions to Mr Te-Hira and TH. You were also observed, during the delivery, taking a call from the freight-forwarder near your residence, an apartment in the Queens Square Residences, Queen Street.
[12] Between 4 and 5 September 2019, Police intercepted conversations between TH and you, Mr Te-Hira, during which you discussed your plan to access the electric
motors after TH returned from an overseas trip and, in the meantime, taking someone down to view the consignment so that they were happy it was safe.
[13] Mr Te-Hira, on 6 September 2019, Police and Customs executed search warrants at your home. The items located included $33,410 in cash and a small quantity of cannabis. You declined to provide a statement to Customs.
[14] Mr Thai, between 5 and 13 September 2019, Police and Customs executed search warrants at your residential apartment and another apartment in the Queens Square Residences, and the apartment in the Guardian Trust Building. The items located at those addresses included:
(a)in suitcases, 46 zip-lock bags containing a total of 26.133 kilograms of methamphetamine, valued at over $4 million;
(b)five sets of electronic scales;
(c)14 mobile phones and various SIM cards;
(d)approximately $9,000 in cash;
(e)a cash-counting machine;
(f)many boxes of zip-lock bags;
(g)two heat-sealing machines;
(h)two small bags of cannabis; and
(i)four large suitcases that had been purchased on 30 August 2019.
[15]You also declined to provide a statement to Customs.
Sentencing purpose and principles
[16]The relevant purposes of sentencing you include:4
(a)holding you accountable for the harm done to the community by your offending;
(b)promoting in you a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgment of, that harm;
(c)denouncing your conduct;
(d)deterring you and any other person from committing the same or similar offences; and
(e)assisting your rehabilitation and reintegration.
[17] It is important that New Zealand does not develop a reputation as a “soft touch” for the transit of illegal drugs or function as the ultimate destination for an importer of illegal drugs.5 The need to deter you and others from committing the same or similar offences has been described by the Court of Appeal as a fundamental requirement and a primary objective in sentencing for drug-related offences.6
[18] In determining the sentence to be imposed, I must take into account the recognised principles of sentencing that include:7
(a)having regard to the gravity of your offending, including the extent of your culpability or blame;
(b)the seriousness of your offending;
4 Sentencing Act 2002, s 7.
5 R v Davis CA440/04, 20 October 2005 at [67].
6 R v Terewi [1999] 3 NZLR 62 (CA) at [13]; Sarah v R [2013] NZCA 446 at [42].
7 Sentencing Act 2002, s 8.
(c)the general desirability of consistency with sentences imposed on similar offenders committing similar offences in similar circumstances;
(d)your personal, family, whanau, community, and cultural background;
(e)any particular circumstances relating to you that mean that a sentence that would otherwise be appropriate would, in your case, be disproportionately severe; and
(f)I must impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.
Personal circumstances
Mr Thai
[19] Mr Thai, you are a 25-year-old citizen of Canada. You describe yourself as Asian-Canadian, a product of your father having been a boat refugee from Vietnam. You grew up in a poorer suburb in Toronto in what might be called a fractured home, characterised by parental absence and disengagement. Your father, who regularly worked 12 to 14-hour shifts at a restaurant, would beat your mother. Your mother would take her anger out on you by beating you; she abandoned your family when you were aged 12. This was reflected in your anti-social behaviour: playing truant; drinking alcohol to excess; taking cannabis, MDMA and cocaine; and dealing drugs. You deny consuming methamphetamine. At aged 19 you had a girlfriend whose father had a gambling and drug debt. You agreed to come to New Zealand to facilitate this drug importation. It seems that both the girlfriend and her father have now abandoned you. Dr Gilbert, who has reported to the Court under s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 concludes that parental absence, experience of violence during your youth and normalisation of drugs and crime contributed to your offending.
[20] You did not complete secondary school with any qualifications and left in year 12. You say you want to use your time in prison productively to further your education. You have previously been employed in sales positions and hope you can study finance, marketing and accounting while in prison, so that when you return to
Canada after you have completed your sentence you can restart your life and find long-term employment.
[21] You have no friends in New Zealand; only criminal associates. But family members and Canadian friends have written in support of you, despite being shocked by, and extremely disapproving of, your offending. It is to your credit, and encouraging, that they have done that. Your family has set up an 0800 number for you to maintain contact with them in Canada and they send you $1,000 every three months to support essential needs.
[22] I accept that you now understand the seriousness of your offending, having been able to see first-hand the consequences of methamphetamine on our society, and that you are genuinely remorseful. You are unwell, suffering from hyperthyroidism which is being kept in hand by the Corrections custodial medical team.
Mr Te-Hira
[23] Mr Te-Hira, you are 32 years old, and of Tongan and Māori descent, though you identify most closely with your Māori whakapapa. You say that a family member passed away in the month leading up to the offending. You considered him to be a brother and say you did not handle his death very well, resorting to a harmful pattern of drug use in order to self-medicate and deal with your grief. You say you were connected with TH at this person’s tangi and he invited you to work in his earthworks business. In the weeks prior to the offending, however, you were called by an anonymous individual asking you to organise storage of some industrial ovens being delivered to New Zealand. You were persuaded to do that by the offer of $50,000 for the job. To a 32-year-old man in his first full-time work, that would have been an extremely attractive sum, but paltry compared to the vast sums of those in charge of the operation would have reaped if things had gone according to plan.
[24] Initially you claimed to the pre-sentence report writer that you did not know what was stored in the motors, but you then corrected yourself and admitted that you didn’t want to know. You said it was only after your arrest, when you were made aware of the scope and size of the operation, that you realised you had become mixed up in serious offending. You said that, before that, you were only a “small time
criminal”. That somewhat under-estimates your long list of previous convictions including one for aggravated your robbery in 2010 when you received a six-year term of imprisonment. But the report writer concludes that your offending is primarily driven by your harmful usage of alcohol and drugs, your offender-supportive attitudes and your associates.
[25] In this description of those aspects of your life and character that have contributed to your reaching this point, almost inevitably, I cannot do justice to the comprehensive and revealing report I have received under s 27 of the Sentencing Act. I have read it carefully. It is a sobering account of negative influences and experiences of a kind that have led far too many young Māori into offending that results in lengthy prison terms. Against a background that includes systemic deprivation and cultural disconnection and inequity; growing up in a gang-affiliated community; and constant exposure to violence within the community, you tested extremely high on the adverse childhood experiences scale. The report describes your early life as being complicated by transience, poverty and exposure to all forms of abuse. You suffer from dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, neuro-disabilities that contributed to your early involvement with drugs, alcohol and crime and limited your education and employability. Although you have been a heavy user of methamphetamine and cannabis, your offending on this occasion was prompted by the prospect of easy money, not by the need to feed an addiction.
[26] By your own report, you have drifted through life, but you appear to be determined to make changes. You are now close to your mother and your siblings; to your partner of 12 years and her whanau, who have also been described as key support people. I acknowledge their presence in support of you today. Others, some of whom are also here, have written impressively about the positive aspects of your character and your commitment to becoming a better family man and father to your three sons. Your partner has noted the change in you resulting from your serious engagement in rehabilitative treatment while remanded on EM bail, addressing your alcohol and drug problems. I trust you will continue those determined efforts to improve while serving your sentence.
[27] I have read your letter to the Court. I accept that you now have some insight into the seriousness of your offending and the destructive effect of the drug you helped to import. I also accept that you take full responsibility for your offending, as you must. Those are good indicators of your rehabilitation prospects.
Approach to sentencing
[28] I will follow a three-step process in determining the appropriate sentences for each of you:
(a)First, I will determine a starting point for sentencing that recognises the seriousness of the offending, taking account of all relevant factors.8 In that, I will take account of the quantity of methamphetamine imported and the role that each of you played.9
(b)Once I have determined the starting point, I will then adjust it to take account of the aggravating and mitigating factors personal to you, including your guilty pleas.10 By this process, I will arrive at the end sentences to be imposed.
(c)Finally, I will consider whether I should direct that you must serve a minimum period of imprisonment.11
Starting points
[29] I have had regard to the cases that have been cited to me by the Crown and your counsel in setting the starting points for each of you and I look first at the quantities involved.
8 Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296 at [6].
9 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648.
10 Moses v R, above n 8.
11 Sentencing Act 2002, s 86.
Quantities
[30] The quantity of methamphetamine involved in dealing with the drug provides a reasonable measure for the social harm done by the drug and the unlawful gains from making, importing and selling it. Here, the massive amount imported and stored at Mangatawhiri for eventual supply was 469 kilograms of 80 per cent pure methamphetamine, valued at around $75 million: a virtual mountain of misery, capable of destroying lives and ruining families had it not been intercepted. That places your offending at the top of the category for which life imprisonment is appropriate.
[31] As well as the methamphetamine stored at Mangatawhiri, Mr Thai, you were in possession of over 26 kilograms of methamphetamine, valued at around $4 million, in itself sufficient to put it in the top of the five sentencing bands attracting starting points of 10 years’ to life imprisonment.
Role – Mr Thai
[32] Mr Thai, I take as the lead offence the possession of the methamphetamine seized at Mangatawhiri when I come to think about the role you played in this offending. The Court of Appeal has provided guidance to sentencing judges by describing factors that may be considered in assessing whether an offender played a lesser, significant or leading role in the offending. On behalf of the Crown, Mr Steele submits that your role in the offending is appropriately placed at the top end of the category of significant involvement or at the lower end of the leading participant category. Ms Kincade QC submits on your behalf that you will fall squarely within the description of having had a significant role.
[33]The aspects of your offending that influence me are:
(a)Your pre-meditated determination to come to this country for the sole purpose of engaging in major drug dealing for what I infer must have been a substantial reward. You would not have come all the way from Canada and spent so much time, virtually alone, in New Zealand for the
purpose of making a enough money to pay off your girlfriend’s father’s debts, unless you expected to be rewarded handsomely.
(b)Your awareness and understanding that this was a large-scale operation, bearing in mind that:
(i)you knew that the drugs were contained in 60 electric motors that had been transported to Mangatawhiri;
(ii)Lucky had instructed you to buy a forklift to deal with the problems with the unloading of the consignment; and
(iii)your purchase of four large suitcases in which to transport the methamphetamine once it was removed from the containers.
(c)Your pivotal operational and management role in executing a plan devised by those to whom you reported, including:
(i)receiving instructions from the man you called Lucky;
(ii)being the point of contact, through your cell phone, for the logistics and freight forwarding companies, TH and Mr Te-Hira;
(iii)co-ordinating the time and place of delivery to Mangatawhiri with the freight forwarding company and issuing directions to Mr Te-Hira and TH; and
(iv)the inference that you would have been directly involved in the sale of the methamphetamine from that consignment, based on your possession of a very large quantity of drugs, cash and the other instruments for distribution and sale at the Guardian Trust apartment.
Assessing the starting point – Mr Thai
[34] I have had regard to the other cases of a similar kind referred to me by counsel, particularly the group of cases arising from the importation of around 500 kilograms of methamphetamine at Ahipara Beach, Northland following a rendezvous between two boats approximately 12 kilometres off the coast.12 I place your role in the knowing assistance with the possession of the Mangatawhiri consignment in a similar category with that of Mr M13 and Mr Fonua,14 and slightly lower than those of Mr Wan and Mr Iustini.15 I accept Ms Kincade’s proposition that you should be placed in the “trusted lieutenant” category of operator and not that of a leader. There is no evidence that you were involved in financing the operation; you did not take physical possession of that import and there is no evidence that you had direct contact with the principals who had overall control of the operation and were most probably overseas. I take a starting point for the Mangatawhiri offending, therefore, of 30 years’ imprisonment.
[35] But a distinction must be made between your case and those others, because you were in possession of a second large quantity of methamphetamine. Although your involvement with the drugs in the city apartment was most probably part of the same overall enterprise, it was separate offending related to 26 kilograms of methamphetamine that must have originated from a different source, or at least a different importation consignment. Taken by itself, that offending would have merited a starting point of not less than 12–15 years. Applying totality principles and recognising that the amounts in the zip-lock bags were of commercial quantities, it is necessary, in my view, to mark that offending by uplifting the starting point to 33 years.
12 R v [M] [2016] NZHC 2881; R v Fonua [2017] NZHC 1193; R v Wan [2017] NZHC 1255;
R v Tuilotolava [2017] NZHC 2621; R v Fakaosilea [2018] NZHC 3362; R v Cullen [2019] NZHC 2088.
13 R v [M] [2016] NZHC 2881.
14 R v Fonua [2017] NZHC 718 [sentence indication]; and R v Fonua, above n 12 [sentencing remarks].
15 R v Wan [2017] NZHC 1255; R v Fakaosilea [2018] NZHC 3362. Mr Iustini was a co-offender who was sentenced at the same time as Mr Fakaosilea, by the same judge.
Role – Te-Hira
[36] Mr Te-Hira, the Crown seeks a starting point of 30 years’ imprisonment for you. Mr Steele says your role in the operation was ‘significant’ and that you were cognisant of the operation’s scale. He says this conclusion is informed by your having assisted in the unloading and secure storage of the import in addition to your discussion of plans to access it and facilitate a third party to view the consignment. With your associate TH, you made it possible to unload and store the material. You admitted you expected to be paid $50,000 for your service and it seems clear that the
$33,410 in cash found at your address was part of that fee. The Crown concedes, however, that you took your instructions from Mr Thai.
[37] Whereas Mr Thai’s involvement was part of his planned engagement in a sophisticated operation, I accept that the evidence indicates that yours was fundamentally opportunistic. Success with this importation may have led to other similar opportunities, but I am satisfied that this was the first time you had been engaged in such offending. Moreover, I am prepared to accept that, although your agreed remuneration would have signalled that a large quantity of drugs was involved, you were not aware at the time of the importation and storage of the motors just how large the consignment was, and there is no evidence you knew it was methamphetamine. Your role in the offending was roughly equivalent to that of Mr Fakaosilea in the Ahipara case for which a starting point of 29 years’ imprisonment was considered appropriate.
[38] Though you were rightly charged with both importation and possession of the methamphetamine for supply, I regard the offending as effectively being one transaction concerning one consignment of drugs; no uplift is called for on account of the separate charges. I take account of the need for parity between Mr Thai and you and I rate his culpability for the two separate offences he committed as significantly greater, justifying a five-year difference in the starting points.
[39]I fix the starting point for you, Mr Te-Hira, at 28 years’ imprisonment.
Personal mitigating features – Mr Thai
[40] Mr Thai, you have self-reported a criminal lifestyle in Canada and your sole purpose in coming to New Zealand was to commit serious crimes. You have been an illegal overstayer for most of your time here. You deserve neither an uplift for past offending nor a discount for past good behaviour.
Imprisonment of a foreign national
[41] As someone who is ordinarily resident overseas, you are entitled to a small discount to reflect the particular challenges you will face serving a long term of imprisonment in a New Zealand prison. The isolation from your family and the likely absence of visitors will make your sentence harder than usual to bear. But the Court of Appeal has also observed that “discounts for foreign national status in cases of drug importation have been modest, as the offending is such that it carries an inherent risk of imprisonment for a lengthy period in a foreign country”.16 A five per cent discount is appropriate.
Remorse
[42] I have read your letter to the Court, Mr Thai. I accept that you have greater insight into the seriousness of your offending and that you are remorseful, now that you recognise the seriously detrimental impacts of methamphetamine on society, and how it generates a cycle of disaffection amongst the most vulnerable families. You have demonstrated a level of contrition above that which is implicit in a guilty plea, and for that I afford you a discount for remorse of around five per cent.
Rehabilitation
[43] Ms Kincade has attached several certificates demonstrating your attempts at rehabilitation and I have been impressed by the warmth of the support and encouragement you are continuing to receive from your family and friends. I will allow a small discount – around five per cent – to reward your pro-social efforts and
16 Keino v R [2019] NZCA 457 at [59].
to recognise and encourage your positive prospects of rehabilitation as a relatively young person.
Youth
[44] You were 23 years old when you offended. I accept that I should avoid imposing a crushing sentence that sends a message that you have no hope of being reintegrated into society.17 I accept also that it would not be easy for you serving a long term of imprisonment at a time when you should be establishing a career, finding a partner and establishing a family. Your offending, however, was extremely calculated and pre-meditated. It was motivated by greed and it does not have the hallmarks of youthful, thoughtless offending that the courts recognise should be considered with some compassion. I am not prepared, therefore, to allow a separate discount for your youth, but I will reflect on that in deciding whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment.
Section 27 cultural background report
[45] You had a bad start in your life, but you appeared to be doing reasonably well when you elected to come to New Zealand to make money. There is no demonstrated connection between your cultural background and your offending other than the obvious fact that you had no real advantages in life and a history of anti-social and criminal behaviour which misguided your views and may have led you to make a very unwise choice in coming here to deal in drugs. To take account of the cultural background, I allow a discount of 2.5 per cent, which brings to 17.5 per cent those factors that I have just mentioned.
Guilty pleas
[46] The courts give credit for a guilty plea principally to facilitate the effective operation of the criminal justice system.18 Mr Thai, you were charged on 6 September 2019 and you entered guilty pleas on 29 January 2021 following discussions to resolve some of the charges. The Crown concedes generously that, while the guilty pleas did
17 Taylor v R [2018] NZCA 444 at [15].
18 Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 at [45].
not occur at the earliest possible opportunity and were entered in the face of a strong Crown case, considerable benefit was afforded to the justice system and those involved by your pleas. Mr Steele suggests a possible discount of 15 per cent. Ms Kincade seeks a slightly higher discount, referring to the fact that this is the first time that you have been involved in New Zealand’s criminal justice system and the time-consuming nature of the review of the evidential material disclosed by the Crown. Ms Kincade states that pleas were entered promptly after you had received full legal advice. I accept how difficult it would have been for you, as a young man, to come to terms with the fact that by pleading guilty you were inevitably going to serve a long period of imprisonment in this country.
[47] I have regard to the Supreme Court’s guidance that the credit for a guilty plea that is given must reflect all the circumstances in which a plea is entered.19 On that basis, I am persuaded that a 20 per cent discount is appropriate.
Effective end sentence
[48] For those reasons, I discount around 37.5 per cent from an adjusted starting point of 33 years’ imprisonment. Rounding it in your favour makes an effective end sentence of 20 years six months’ imprisonment.
Personal mitigating features - Mr Te-Hira
Guilty pleas
[49] Mr Te-Hira, for the reasons I have given regarding Mr Thai, I allow a 20 per cent discount for your guilty pleas.
Remorse
[50] I have had regard to your letter to the Court, Mr Te-Hira. I accept that, like Mr Thai, you have greater insight into the seriousness of your offending and that you are remorseful, now that you recognise the serious detrimental impacts of methamphetamine on society, and how it generates a cycle of disaffection amongst the
19 Hessell v R, above n 18, at [74].
most vulnerable families. You too have demonstrated a level of contrition above that implicit in a guilty plea and I allow you a five per cent discount for remorse.
Section 27 cultural background report
[51] You had an appalling upbringing, bereft of advantage, and I have been moved by the contents of the s 27 report. It is no surprise that you are here, and you were motivated by greed, but I do not see you as a cold-hearted, avaricious drug dealer. You were a drug addict, but also a family-oriented man with a loving and supportive partner and three sons whom you love, who had a sense of failure in the roles of partner and parent and who made the terrible mistake of chasing a large sum of easy money. It was opportunistic offending but, given your cultural background, neuro-disabilities and extensive adverse childhood experiences, it is not surprising that you indulged in it. Without in any way minimising the extreme seriousness of the offending, and taking into account the other discounts I am prepared to make, I consider a discount of 10 per cent for cultural background factors is appropriate.
Rehabilitation
[52] I acknowledge the serious efforts at rehabilitation you made during your time on EM bail, when you underwent the Bridge Programme, Community Alcohol and Drugs Services training and also attended Pittman House Detoxification Centre. The Crown has taken a sympathetic view of your prospects. You have the encouraging support of your partner, your friends and whānau. With some grace, Mr Steele acknowledges that, despite an absence of a clear nexus between the commercial nature of your offending and any demonstrable addiction issues, your rehabilitative efforts warrant a five per cent discount. I agree and will make that allowance. I will also make an allowance of the time you spent on EM bail.
Effective end sentence
[53] From the starting point, therefore, I apply a discount of around 40 per cent – that is, 16 years nine months’ imprisonment.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[54] The Court of Appeal emphasised that minimum periods of imprisonment are not to be “imposed as a matter of routine or in a mechanistic sort of way”.20 The Court said that as a general rule, lengthy minimum periods of imprisonment are properly reserved for cases involving significant commercial dealing. Further, it is “deterrence, denunciation and accountability that are likely to be at the forefront of decisions in drug cases involving the imposition of minimum periods of imprisonment”.21 A minimum period of imprisonment is required to confer a degree of reality on your sentences.22 But I acknowledge that the Court of Appeal has recently expressed a view that a minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed only when it appears to be entirely appropriate.23
[55] In this case, so far as both of you are concerned, I have acknowledged your rehabilitation prospects and I have made allowances for that. But I have, after some reflection, determined that for me to impose a minimum period of imprisonment in these cases would be to unduly interfere with the discretion of the Parole Board, which will be much better served than I am at this point to determine later whether you are truly rehabilitated and when you are ready for release.
[56] For those reasons, I decline to apply or impose a minimum period of imprisonment.
Result
[57]Mr Te-Hira and Mr Thai, will you please stand.
[58] Mr Thai, on each charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply, I sentence you to 20 years six months’ imprisonment. Those terms will be served concurrently.
20 Zhang v R, above n 9, at [169].
21 At [171].
22 R v Gordon [2009] NZCA 145 at [15].
23 Prasad v R [2020] NZCA 483 at [29]–[34].
[59] Mr Te-Hira, on each of the charges of importing methamphetamine and on the charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply, I impose a sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment which includes an allowance of nine months for the time you spent on EM bail. You will serve those sentences also concurrently.
[60]I make orders for:
(a)the destruction of the methamphetamine seized, all materials and equipment used for the supply of methamphetamine, and of the pistol and ammunition also seized in the search;
(b)forfeiture of the cash – $9,000 found at Mr Thai’s apartment and
$33,410 found at Mr Te-Hira’s address.
[61]You may stand down.
Toogood J
7