R v Toki - [2024] NZHC 3783

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CRI-2022-085-002285

[2024] NZHC 3783

THE KING

v

JAMIE-LEE SONIA TOKI

Hearing: 10 December 2024

Counsel:

M Story for Crown

J Owers for Defendant

Sentencing:

10 December 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GRAU J

[1] Ms Toki you appear for sentencing today at the age of 30 having pleaded guilty to:

(a)six charges of receiving.1 One was a representative charge, four other receiving charges related to items worth over $1,000, one was receiving an item worth between $500 and $1,000; and

(b)one charge of obtaining by deception.2

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 246, 247(a), and 66(1), maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment; and s 247(b) maximum penalty one year imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act 1961, ss 240(1)(a) and 241(a), maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

R v TOKI (SENTENCING) [2024] NZHC 3783 [10 December 2024]

[2] You accepted a sentence indication from Radich J in August. Radich J indicated a starting point for sentence of four years’ imprisonment in relation to all of these charges.

[3] It is usual for the Judge who gives a sentence indication to then carry on to do the sentencing. But that is not inevitable. I am doing the sentencing because Radich J is not available, and on the basis that I have agreed with Radich J about the starting point for sentence and the reductions that he mentioned. So, I am not departing from that starting point or the other matters that he indicated.

[4] What I need to decide today is the question of reductions beyond the 25 per cent for your guilty pleas. Those further reductions are to reflect your personal circumstances.

[5] I have sentenced another co-offender this morning and I will sentence another co-offender tomorrow. Of course the principal offender, Mr Soon, has already been sentenced on 21 receiving charges and he received an end sentence of three years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

The offending

[6] The offending was summarised by Radich J in his sentence indication. This was a large-scale operation involving stolen property. Mr Soon had connections throughout Wellington and a network of people who were either stealing property for him or selling stolen property to him, and he had people helping him to onsell it.

[7] You were one of two people who were Mr Soon’s most significant providers of stolen property and you acted as a receiver yourself as well. You would obtain property. Mr Soon would collect it or arrange for you to leave it at one of his storage lockers that he was renting.

[8] During 2022, you were in regular communication with Mr Soon. The summary of facts says that between July and October 2022 you were averaging about 75 communications every week and these were almost entirely about the sale and purchase of stolen property or other property that had been obtained illegally.

[9] Your also were the largest receiver of bank transfers from Mr Soon. There were 70…

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 Toki

Details

AGLC: R v Toki [2024] NZHC 3783
Case: [2024] NZHC 3783
Decision Date: 10 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, the case of R v Toki involved sentencing for Jamie-Lee Sonia Toki, who pleaded guilty to six charges of receiving and one charge of obtaining by deception. The court accepted a sentence indication from Radich J, which proposed a starting point for sentence of four years’ imprisonment. Grau J, who conducted the sentencing, agreed with Radich J's starting point and the reductions mentioned. The primary legal issue was the determination of further reductions beyond the 25% for Toki's guilty pleas, reflecting her personal circumstances.

The court considered Toki's involvement in a large-scale operation involving stolen property, where she played a significant role in receiving stolen items and facilitating their resale. Despite her active participation, the court also acknowledged Toki's personal circumstances, including problematic alcohol use, significant personal losses, and an abusive relationship, which contributed to her offending. Additionally, the court noted Toki's genuine remorse and motivation to address her alcohol issues and reintegrate into society. Grau J concluded that a 15% reduction for personal matters and a further 10% for remorse and rehabilitation prospects were appropriate. Consequently, Toki's sentence was reduced from four years to two years imprisonment, with the court imposing 12 months of home detention and 100 hours of community work. Special conditions for home detention included attending programs, counselling, and other support services.

The final orders included a sentence of 12 months’ home detention with special conditions, 100 hours of community work, and a reminder that any further offending could lead to cancellation of the home detention and imposition of imprisonment.

Orders