Legal Research
Cases
R v To'Ofohe

R v To'Ofohe

Case [2025] NZHC 1184 15 May 2025

Sentencing

Role in Offending

Personal Mitigating Factors

Aggravating Factors

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Compensatory Damages

Causation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF MR TO’OFOHE’S SISTER AS A CONNECTED PERSON PURSUANT TO S 202 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE PARAGRAPH [85].

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2023-085-1188

[2025] NZHC 1184

THE KING

SUNIA MANO TO’OFOHE

Sentencing: 15 May 2025

Appearances:

T G Bain and L R van der Lem for Crown K I Jefferies for Defendant

Sentencing notes:

19 May 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF GWYN J

Introduction

[1] Sunia Mano To’ofohe, you appear for sentence today, having been convicted by a jury of 14 charges in total:

(a)three charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply;1

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (c) and (2)(a); maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

R v TO’OFOHE [2025] NZHC 1184 [15 May 2025]

(b)one charge of possession of cocaine for supply;2

(c)two charges of possession of oxycodone for supply;3

(d)one charge of possession of LSD for supply;4

(e)one charge of possession of GBL for supply;5

(f)one charge of possession of cannabis for sale;6

(g)one charge of unlawful possession of a firearm;7

(h)one charge of unlawful possession of ammunition;8 and

(i)two charges of supplying methamphetamine.9

[2] In sentencing you today, I apply the Sentencing Act, which sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing. The particular purposes of sentencing I think are relevant to you are to hold you accountable for the harm you have done to the community through your offending; to denounce and deter the criminal conduct; and to protect the community.10

[3] Because sentencing is a public process it is important that I set out the detail of the offending you have been found guilty of. Then I will talk about your personal circumstances and summarise what the lawyers have said to me about how I should approach the sentencing. I will then calculate a sentence by adopting a two-step approach: first, I will set a starting point based on the offending. At that stage I will talk about an important case called Zhang v R, which is what we call a “guideline”

2      Section 6(1)(f) and (c) and (2)(a); maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
3      Section 6(1)(f) and (c) and (2)(b); maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 6(1)(f) and (c) and (2)(a); maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
5      Section 6(1)(f) and (c) and (2)(b); maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
6      Section 6(1)(f) and (e) and (2)(c); maximum penalty of 8 years’ imprisonment.
7      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b); maximum penalty of 4 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $5,000, or both.
8      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b); maximum penalty of 4 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $5,000, or both.
9      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a); maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
10     Sentencing Act 2002, s 7.

judgment for offences involving methamphetamine,11 and some other cases involving similar offending. Second, I will consider whether any uplifts (increases) or discounts should…

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 To'Ofohe

Details

AGLC: R v To'Ofohe [2025] NZHC 1184
Case: [2025] NZHC 1184
Decision Date: 15 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The King v Sunia Mano To’ofohe, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, concerns a sentencing hearing following To’ofohe's conviction on multiple drug-related charges, including possession for supply and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. The defendant's criminal activities were uncovered during a police operation targeting methamphetamine supply in the Wellington region. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that reflects the seriousness of the crimes, the role To’ofohe played in the drug supply chain, and personal circumstances that might mitigate the sentence. The legal issues included assessing the quantity and variety of drugs involved, To’ofohe's role in the drug operation, and the personal factors that could either aggravate or mitigate the sentence.

The court meticulously analyzed the evidence, including the amount of drugs seized, financial transactions, and To’ofohe's role in the drug operation. The court determined that To’ofohe's role, though significant, was not leading but rather at the upper end of significant. The sentencing process involved setting a starting point based on the gravity of the drug-related offenses, adjusted for other drug charges and firearms offenses. The court applied discounts for personal factors, such as addiction and other mitigating circumstances, and considered time spent on electronically-monitored bail. Ultimately, the court decided against imposing a Minimum Period of Imprisonment (MPI), emphasizing the importance of rehabilitation and the potential for To’ofohe to reform. The final sentence was set at fourteen years and ten months’ imprisonment, with additional orders for the destruction of seized drugs and forfeiture of related items.

Orders