R v Toman - [2018] NZHC 2546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CRI-2017-091-000902 [2018] NZHC 2546

THE QUEEN

v

JIMMY RANGI TOMAN

Counsel;
E M Light for Crown

P H Mitchell and V C Nisbet for Defendant

Sentence:

28 September 2018

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Toman, you appear for sentence on the following charges:

(1)one representative charge of supplying or offering to supply methamphetamine;1 and

(2)one representative charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.2

[2] You pleaded guilty to those charges after I gave you a sentence indication on

20 April 2018.3

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Sections 6(1)(f) and (2)(a); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      R v Toman [2018] NZHC 748.

R v TOMAN [2018] NZHC 2546 [28 September 2018]

[3] The delay in sentencing you until today has been to enable you to explore possible programmes to address your addiction issues.

[4] This morning I will:

(1) set out your offending;

(2) outline the appropriate starting point for that offending;

(3) explain any adjustments that may be made to that starting point; and

(4) state your final sentence.

Offending

[5] The charges result from a police operation code-named “Operation Walnut” which commenced in November 2016. That investigation targeted the commercial supply of methamphetamine in the Wellington region.

[6] A surveillance device warrant allowed police to intercept private communications and carry out visual surveillance of two principal targets, Mr Blance and Mr Berkland. They were purchasing kilogram quantities of methamphetamine from Auckland-based suppliers. Mr Blance and Mr Berkland would then on-supply the methamphetamine to a number of associates in their distribution networks. Most of the offending took place at an address in Coates Street in Tawa. Associates would then on-supply the methamphetamine further.

[7] You were one of those associates. Between 20 February and 11 April 2017, police intercepted 85 communications between you and Mr Blance, and observed you visiting the Coates Street address through CCTV footage on 10 separate days and on some days, you visited the address on multiple occasions.

[8] On 18 March 2017, police intercepted a communication where you and

Mr Blance were discussing your methamphetamine debt. It became evident from this conversation that you had previously purchased 28 grams of methamphetamine from

Mr Blance. This was corroborated by similar conversations intercepted on 28 March and 9 April 2017. You purchased 28 grams on 18 March 2017, which was supported by another intercepted conversation on 20 March 2107. Altogether, police estimate you purchased at least between 140 and 168 grams. That amount is worth approximately $60,000 to $70,000.

[9] On 11 April 2017, at the termination of the investigation, police executed a production order on two cell phone numbers used by you. Text messages from these numbers confirm that you were involved in the supply of methamphetamine to your own customers. Based on these text messages, you supplied methamphetamine on at least 15…

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 Toman

Details

AGLC: R v Toman [2018] NZHC 2546
Case: [2018] NZHC 2546
Decision Date: 28 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the defendant, Jimmy Rangi Toman, was sentenced for two charges: supplying or offering to supply methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine for supply. Toman pleaded guilty to these charges after the court provided a sentence indication on April 20, 2018. The charges stemmed from a police operation named "Operation Walnut," targeting the commercial supply of methamphetamine in the Wellington region. The operation involved surveillance and interception of communications, leading to the discovery of Toman's involvement in the supply network.

The legal issues the court had to decide included determining the appropriate starting point for Toman's sentence, any adjustments that might be made to that starting point, and the final sentence to be imposed. The court considered the nature and extent of Toman's offending, his role in the overall operation, and his previous convictions. The court also weighed personal mitigating and aggravating factors, such as Toman's long-standing drug addiction, his efforts to address these issues, and his criminal history, particularly his previous convictions for drug dealing.

The court reasoned that Toman's offending warranted a starting point of five years and nine months' imprisonment, considering the commercial scale of his activities and the harm caused by methamphetamine. Adjusting for personal mitigating factors, including Toman's severe addiction and his intention to seek rehabilitation, the court deducted 14 months from the starting point. Additionally, Toman received a discount of just over 20% for pleading guilty, though not at the earliest opportunity. After all adjustments, the court imposed a final sentence of four years' imprisonment, to be served concurrently for both charges. This decision was consistent with sentences handed down to other co-offenders involved in "Operation Walnut."

Orders