R v Tini - [2013] NZHC 2184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-092-1557 [2013] NZHC 2184

THE QUEEN

v

TEAEA METUA TINI

Hearing: 27 August 2013

Counsel: E C Rutherford for the Crown
S Tait and J M Hudson for the Prisoner

Judgment: 27 August 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF BROWN J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Auckland
Counsel: S Tait, Manukau

R v TINI [2013] NZHC 2184 [27 August 2013]

[1] Mr Tini you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty in the District Court at Manukau on 16 April 2013 to a charge of possession of cannabis for supply pursuant to s 6(1)(f) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The District Court has declined jurisdiction to sentence you because the sentence that could be imposed upon you in the District Court was potentially inadequate to meet the circumstances of your offending. That is why you are being sentenced in the High Court. The maximum sentence in the High Court is eight years imprisonment.

Background facts

[2] A brief outline of the facts is as follows.

[3] In the afternoon of Waitangi Day 2013 you were driving a motor vehicle which was stopped by police on Alfriston Road, Manurewa but only after you intentionally tried to avoid the police. The police smelt the presence of a cannabis odour in the vehicle and executed a search of you and the vehicle. A plastic drink bottle containing six tinnies was located underneath the driver’s seat and two snaplock bags, each containing 28 grams of cannabis plant material, were located underneath the passenger seat. The total weight of the cannabis was 68 grams.

[4] Located in the front pocket of your trousers was the sum of $211 in cash.

[5] In explanation you stated that five of the tinnies were for personal use but you declined to offer any explanation for the rest and as the Probation report recognises, the quantity of cannabis involved could not plausibly be said to be for personal use at least on one occasion, namely the big Waitangi Day party that you said you were heading to. So you have admitted a charge of possession of cannabis for supply and that is a sensible course to take.

Personal circumstances

[6] You are 30 years of age. You live with your sister, father and niece. You are the caregiver to your father who suffers from Alzheimers disease. You have three children to a previous partner who is present today. Your separation is due to your historical convictions for assaulting your partner and one of your children.

[7] You have a harmful pattern of drug use but you have recognised the link between the current offence and your prior offences.

[8] The probation service reports that you are embarrassed about your current situation and that you have indicated that you are sick of using drugs. However it is said that your level of remorse could not be accurately gauged beyond this but I note that since that time you have not only attended but…

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 Tini

Details

AGLC: R v Tini [2013] NZHC 2184
Case: [2013] NZHC 2184
Decision Date: 27 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Teaea Metua Tini involved the defendant, Tini, who was sentenced for possession of cannabis for supply. Tini was caught by the police on Waitangi Day 2013, with a significant amount of cannabis found in his vehicle, leading to a charge under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The District Court declined jurisdiction to sentence Tini, recognising that the potential sentence in that court was inadequate given the circumstances of the offence. The case was thus transferred to the High Court, where the maximum penalty for the offence is eight years imprisonment.

The primary legal issues in the case involved determining an appropriate starting point for the sentence and then adjusting that starting point based on the mitigating and aggravating factors relevant to Tini's case. The court considered the quantity of the cannabis, the defendant’s prior convictions, his personal circumstances, and his level of remorse and engagement in rehabilitation programs. The court also needed to decide whether imprisonment or an alternative sentence, such as home detention, would be more appropriate.

The High Court Judge, Brown J, carefully evaluated the evidence and submissions from both the Crown and Tini’s counsel. After considering the principles and purposes of sentencing, including the need for accountability, deterrence, and the least restrictive outcome, the court determined a starting point of 25 months imprisonment. Aggravating factors such as Tini’s prior convictions for similar offences led to an uplift of three months, while mitigating factors such as his guilty plea and engagement in rehabilitation programs led to discounts totalling seven months. This resulted in an effective sentence of 21 months imprisonment. However, the court ultimately decided on a sentence of home detention for 12 months, combined with 150 hours of community work, due to Tini's expressed remorse, his family support, and his role as a caregiver for his father with Alzheimer's disease. The court imposed strict conditions on the home detention to ensure compliance and to reinforce the seriousness of the offence. The court also ordered the destruction of the drugs in accordance with the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

Orders