R v Tuumaga

[2025] NZHC 996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-004-001080 [2025] NZHC 996

THE KING

v

ANDY OLOAFOFA TUUMAGA

Hearing:                   29 April 2025

Appearances:           K S Li and K H H Nihill for the Crown

M J Dyhrberg KC, J N Olsen and I E Devlin for the Defendant

Judgment:                29 April 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF VAN BOHEMEN J

Counsel/Solicitors:

M J Dyhrberg KC, Auckland Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v TUUMAGA [2025] NZHC 996 [29 April 2025]

[1]    Andy Oloafofa Tuumaga, you appear today for sentencing, having pleaded guilty on 8 January 2025 to one charge of importing methamphetamine1 and one charge of possession for supply of methamphetamine.2 The maximum sentence for both charges is life imprisonment.

[2]    Sentencing is a formal process that takes some time. That is because I must explain the reasons for the sentence I am to impose. You and everyone in Court, and any court that reviews this decision, must know the basis upon which I have imposed the sentence.

[3]This is the process I will follow:

(a)First, I will outline the circumstances of your offending.

(b)Secondly, I will consider your personal circumstances as they have been put before the Court.

(c)Thirdly, I will explain the approach to setting the sentence and discuss the requirements of the Sentencing Act 2002 as they apply in this case and in accordance with decisions of the Court of Appeal  and  the High Court.

(d)Finally, I will determine and impose the sentence I consider appropriate.

The offending

[4]    Mr Tuumaga, you were charged in relation to Operation Regis, a police investigation into the importation of methamphetamine into Auckland. You are one of six defendants charged in relation to this operation.

[5]    On 13 January 2023, you entered New Zealand from Melbourne, Australia, where you were resident.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(a) and 6(2).

2      Sections 6(1)(f) and 6(2).

[6]    On 14 January 2023, a consignment of 18 pallets of bottles of maple syrup arrived at the Ports of Auckland from Canada. The consignment was investigated and it was discovered that the bottles were being used to conceal methamphetamine.

[7]    The consignment was addressed to Huada Exchange and Development Ltd at 44 Anzac Avenue,  Auckland.  At   this   address,   the   instructions   were   for Chinz Logistics, a customs broker, to split the consignment between you and one of your co-defendants.

[8]    Six of the eight pallets addressed to you contained methamphetamine. The Crown estimates that the total amount of methamphetamine in those pallets consigned to you was between 550 and 560 kilograms.

[9]    On 20 January 2023, the police obtained a warrant to intercept communications on devices held by you.

[10]On 23 January 2023, you rented a Toyota Hiace van.

[11]   Three days later, you discussed the delivery of your consignment with Chinz Logistics, by cellphone. On the same day you returned the Hiace van and departed the country.

[12]   You returned to New Zealand on 1 February 2023. On your arrival, you remained in regular contact with others, including over delays in the arrival of the shipment because of the heavy rainfall and floods over the Auckland Anniversary Day weekend.

[13]   Between 1 February 2023 and 8 February 2023, you regularly texted and called Chinz Logistics to arrange for the delivery of your consignment to an address at Kiwitahi Road, Helensville.

[14]   On 8 February 2023, a controlled delivery was undertaken by police and Customs to the Kiwitahi Road address at Helensville. On this day, at 10.30 am, four of your co-defendants arrived at that address. They began unloading the consignment at around 12.15 pm. Police entered the premises and arrested the four men.

[15]   At 2 pm that day, you re-rehired the same Hiace van. You travelled to Helensville at around 4 pm, after calls and texts by those directing the operation to the co-defendants at the Helensville address were unanswered and you were unable to contact one of the co-defendants.

[16]   You were arrested in the Helensville township. When arrested, your phone showed a map open for directions to the Kiwitahi Road address.

[17]   According to the summary of facts on which your guilty pleas were based, the consignment of methamphetamine that you helped to import contained a combined weight of 713.8 kilograms of methamphetamine. As I have said, you were involved directly with ensuring that the pallets addressed to you containing 550 to 560 kilograms of methamphetamine were imported.

[18]   According to communications between you and those directing the operation, and as confirmed in your interviews with Dr Rogers, a psychologist with whom you spoke earlier this month, your role was to take delivery of the pallets and, upon the methamphetamine being unpacked, to provide it to an individual as directed before you returned to Australia. You were also to be involved in handling funds from sales of the drug and in directing and training others on related money drops. You have said you were to receive NZD600,000 for your efforts.

[19]   You have been on electronically monitored bail since 6 March 2023. Initially, you were subject to a 24-hour curfew. On 7 July 2023, the bail conditions were varied to allow you to attend the gym, church and your parents’ home. On 28 September 2023, your bail conditions were relaxed further so that the curfew applied only between 7 pm and 7 am.

[20]There are no records of any bail breaches.

Personal circumstances

[21]   The following account is drawn principally from what you told the Corrections report writer and Dr Rogers.

[22]   You are 47 years of age and of Samoan descent. You were born in New Zealand and, apart from a five-year period spent in San Francisco, you spent your youth and were educated in New Zealand. You moved to Australia when you were 18 and have been resident there since then until your arrest just over two years ago.

[23]   You have four children whose ages range from 17 to 27. They all reside in Australia.

[24]   You were aged 45 at the time of your offending. You have no previous convictions in New Zealand or Australia.

[25]   You were raised by your mother and father until age five. You were the fourth child of six. During those early years, you were exposed to family violence from your father against your mother and against your older brother, who tried to protect your mother. You and your other siblings also experienced some direct violence from your father.

[26]   When you were five, you were adopted by your mother’s brother because of the violence at home. Your adoptive father took you to San Francisco for five years, where you felt loved and cared for, and where you performed well academically at elementary school.

[27]   You came back to New Zealand when you were 10. You continued to live with your uncle, but you also lived in close proximity to your birth family. You experienced some abuse from     when you were aged 10 to 14, but you did not disclose this for fear of not being believed and punished. You also received ongoing physical abuse from your parents until you were 18. Even so, you had an overall positive experience at Kelston Boys’ High School, where you were a speech winner, a member of the debating team, head librarian and a prefect. You also achieved grades that would have enabled you to attend university.

[28]   You moved to Australia when you were 18 to be with your then partner. Despite plans to become a teacher, you started working to earn money. When you

were 20, you started working in nightclubs and you remained in that industry for about 20 years. For a period, you co-owned your own night club.

[29]   When you were 41, you moved on to event and festival marketing. You collaborated in marketing events, concerts and festivals, worldwide and excelled in various roles within the entertainment and marketing industries. You travelled extensively including frequent trips to New Zealand for work and to see your parents.

[30]   You have had a number of previous relationships, which did not end happily. You had two children with your first partner, in a relationship which began when you were 15. That relationship ended after you confronted your partner for her infidelity to you. You say you did not see your children for about 13 years. You had three further relationships, all of which ended unhappily and acrimoniously for similar reasons. You say it was in the context of breakup of that last partner and the attendant feelings of abandonment that you were persuaded by contacts in the entertainment industry to engage in the activities that led to your arrest in February 2023.

[31]   Despite the constraints of your bail conditions, you have managed to begin a new relationship since your arrest. Your partner and you have been together for about a year, she has been a source of emotional and spiritual support to you and has helped you through the stresses and trauma of your current circumstances. As it has been confirmed this morning, your partner lives in New Zealand

[32]   You say that you do not often use alcohol, given your early exposure to its adverse effects, and you do not use illicit drugs.

[33]   The Corrections report writer and Dr Rogers consider you to be at a low risk of reoffending and a low risk of physical harm to others. However, as the Corrections report writer notes, your offending carried with it a very large risk of significant harm to others.

[34]   Dr Rogers reports that you have genuine desire to maintain a prosocial lifestyle, that you have a positive support network, and that you are reflecting on your past and recognise the need for change.

[35]   You have expressed sincere remorse to the Corrections report writer and to  Dr Rogers and directly to the Court. The Corrections report writer and Dr Rogers say you have taken full responsibility for your actions. You say that your attendance at church has influenced your desire to take responsibility and plead guilty. You have expressed shame at your involvement in the offending and you say that you would never wish to be responsible for the harms that are caused by drugs.

[36]   I have received four letters from people who known you for periods ranging from 10 to 20 years. They all speak highly of you and your work in the entertainment industry. They also commend you for the voluntary work you have undertaken to support your community in Australia and beyond. These include your relief efforts following the 2011 floods in Brisbane and the 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa and your establishment of a safe place for young Pasifika men dealing with various challenges in their lives.

Purposes and principles of sentencing

[37]   In sentencing you, Mr Tuumaga, I must take into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act. In particular, I must impose on you a sentence which holds you accountable for the harm methamphetamine offending does to the community, promotes responsibility for and acknowledgement of that harm, denounces your conduct, and deters you and others from committing similar offences in the future.3

[38]   I must also take into account the gravity of the offending, the seriousness of this type of offending4 and the desirability of consistency with appropriate sentencing levels.5 Section 8 also requires that I impose the maximum penalty if the offending is within the most serious of cases, or near to the maximum penalty if the offending is near to the most serious of cases, unless circumstances relating to you make that inappropriate.6 However, I am also required to impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances,7 to take into account your personal, family,

3      Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b), 7(1)(e) and 7(1)(f).

4      Sections 8(a) and 8(b).

5      Section 8(e).

6      Section 8(c) and (d)

7      Section 8(g).

whanau, community, and cultural background,8 and to be mindful of the need to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.9

[39]   As your counsel will have explained to you, as a critical step in sentencing you, I must establish the starting point for calculating the sentence. Once that has been established, I must consider whether there should be any uplift or discounts by reference to your personal circumstances and any relevant aggravating or mitigating factors as set out in s 9 of the Sentencing Act.

Submissions

[40]   Having initially proposed a starting point of life imprisonment, Ms Li for the Crown accepts that a starting point of a finite term is appropriate in your case having regard to other decisions, including the recent decision in R v S.10 Ms Li says the starting point should be 32 years’ imprisonment. Ms Li accepts there should be a reduction of up to 25 per cent for your guilty pleas and acknowledges that further deductions may be appropriate for your prior good character and that a deduction should be made for your time on electronically monitored bail. Ms Li also submits that I should impose a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years.

[41]   Your counsel, Ms Dyhrberg KC, submits that your role does not warrant a starting point of life imprisonment but says I should adopt a starting point of 30 years’ imprisonment. Ms Dyhrberg submits that there should be a total of 50 per cent reductions. These reductions cover a 25 per cent reduction for your guilty plea; 15 per cent for previous good character; 5 per cent for remorse; 2.5 per cent for personal circumstances; and 2.5 per cent for your being a foreign national. However, it is now established that that is not the case. Ms Dyhrberg submits further that there should be a further reduction of 6 months in recognition of the time you spent on electronically monitored bail.

8      Section 8(i).

9      Section 7(h).

10     R v S [2025] NZHC 349.

Starting point

[42]   In setting the starting point, I must take into consideration the sentencing guidelines for methamphetamine-related offending set by the Court of Appeal in Zhang v R, as modified by the Supreme Court in Berkland v R.11 Those guidelines require consideration of both the quantity of methamphetamine supplied and your role in the offending. Those factors determine which sentencing band you come within and where in that band you should be placed.12

[43]   On quantity, you were directly involved in the importation of between 550 to 560 kilograms of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply. There is no question that this places you in band five, for which a starting point of 10 years to life imprisonment is indicated. As Ms Li submits, this quantity alone places you at the highest end of band 5 and warrants a starting point well in excess of 10 years’ imprisonment. Ms Dyhrberg accepts that a starting point in the vicinity of 30 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. Indeed, it is inevitable. As the Court of Appeal reaffirmed in Zhang, quantity remains a reasonable proxy both for the social harm caused by methamphetamine and for the illicit gains made from making, importing and supplying it. Your involvement in one of the largest importations of methamphetamine in New Zealand to date means the starting point must be towards the upper end of the range.

[44]   The key question in contention is whether I should adopt the maximum starting point of life imprisonment, as had been submitted by the Crown, or a finite period, as is now accepted by the Crown, and then what that period should be. This turns on my assessment of your role, in terms of the role profiles set by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court and having regard to broadly comparable cases.

[45]   The Court of Appeal has set three role profiles, which are categorised as lesser, significant and leading.13 Ms Li submits that your role comes squarely within and towards the upper end of the significant category, as that profile was modified in

11     Zhang  v R  [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648; Berkland  v R  [2022] NZSC 143, [2022]

1 NZLR 509.

12     Zhang v R, above n 11, at [118].

13 At [126].

Berkland. Ms Dyhrberg says your role is within the lower end of that profile and even says  that  your role was  at  the upper end  of lesser.  On that  point,  I do not  agree. I consider it obvious that you are in the significant category. The issue is how significant.

[46]   The challenge for me is that, probably because your alleged co-defendants have yet to be tried, there is not a lot of information before the Court of the overall operation. The Crown says the drugs syndicate was highly sophisticated, involved various levels of seniority and was orchestrated by an overseas criminal group. That may well be so, but those aspects are not in evidence before me. The information before me comprises the bare outlines of what happened in New Zealand and your actual and projected role in the operation. While I can make certain inferences about the sophistication and scale of the operation from the size of the importation and the arrangements for its delivery, that does not really help me establish where in that operation you fitted.

[47]   What we know about your role is that you were to take delivery of the larger part of the consignment, and you were to be involved in handling sales proceeds and in directing and training others in relation to money drops. And, you were to receive

$600,000 for your efforts. That sum alone provides a strong basis for inferring that your role was important. However, it also establishes that you were not expecting to share in the profits of the enterprise, which, although the estimated street value of the consignment is not in evidence, would likely have been higher by orders of magnitude.

[48]   In terms of the role profiles described in Zhang, as modified in Berkland, I consider it established that you had an operational function, that you were motivated primarily by expected financial gain and, as I have said, the size of the expected payment to you is commensurate with an important role and the risk you assumed in taking delivery of the consignment. Given the number of pallets for which you were responsible and your projected involvement in dealing with sales proceeds, I also conclude that you had some awareness and understanding of the scale of the operation.

[49]   However, I do not consider the evidence is sufficient to infer that you had a significant management role. Clearly, it does not establish that your role was a leading role.   That in itself persuades me that a starting point of life imprisonment is not

appropriate. Despite the quantity involved, your offending is not the most serious of cases, even if it is near to the most serious of cases. It is quite different, for example, from that considered recently by Downs J, where a sentence of life imprisonment was imposed.14 The fact you have pleaded guilty at an early stage is another reason for not adopting a starting point of life imprisonment, as acknowledged by Lang J in a sentence imposed for the Ninety Mile Beach offending which involved a similar, though smaller, quantity of methamphetamine.15

[50]   So, the question is where to set the starting point for a finite sentence. Given that your offending involves one of the largest importations of methamphetamine into New Zealand, and given starting points adopted in similar cases referred to me by Crown and defence counsel, that range is effectively 26 to 35 years’ imprisonment.16

[51]   Having considered those decisions, and the roles identified in respect of the various defendants, I am satisfied that your role was broadly comparable to those of the defendants in R v M, R v Fonua and R v Thai, where starting points of 30 years’ imprisonment were adopted. Given your responsibilities in taking delivery of the consignment and in dealing with sales proceeds, your role had a similar importance to that of the defendant in R v M, whom Fogarty J described as a conscientious and highly trusted participant.17 In that role and in your responsibilities regarding the sale proceeds and money drops, you were, like Mr Fonua and Mr Thai, acting as a trusted lieutenant in a very significant drug importation.18 In terms of the Supreme Court’s discussion in Berkland, I would characterise that role as being within the mid-range of significant, irrespective of whether your role was or was not as significant as that of Mr Berkland.19

[52]   However, I am satisfied that your role was not  as significant  as those of    Mr Wan or of Mr Netzler or of Mr Cole, in respect of whom higher starting points

14 R v F [2025] NZHC 651.

15 R v Fonua [2017] 1193 at [3].

16 R v M [2016] NZHC 2881; R v Fonua, above n 14; R v Wan [2017] NZHC 1255; R v Tuilotolava; [2017] NZHC 2621; R v Fakoasilea [2018] NZHC 3362; R v Thai [2021] NZHC 1006; R v Netzler [2021] NZHC 3321; R v Cole [2024] NZHC 3518; R v S, above n 10; R v Kahlon [2025] NZHC 350.

17     R v M, above n 16, at [4].

18     R v Fonua, above n 16, at [3]; R v Thai, above n 16, at [34].

19     Berkland v R, above n 11, at [80].

were adopted. While there are some similarities between your role and that of the defendant in R v S, for whom a starting point of 32 years was adopted, the offending in that case was more reckless because of the risk posed to the community by the dissolving of methamphetamine in bottles of drink, some of which ended up in a supermarket.

[53]Accordingly, I adopt a starting point of 30 years’ imprisonment.

Adjustment to starting point for personal factors

[54]   The next question is whether the starting point should be adjusted upwards or downwards to take into account any aggravating or mitigating factors.

[55]   The Crown does not  assert that  any of the  aggravating factors as  set out  in s 9(1) of the Sentencing Act apply. The issue, therefore, is whether discounts should be made for your guilty plea, your claimed remorse, your previous good character, your personal circumstances and the time you have spent on electronically monitored bail.

Guilty plea

[56]   You were charged in February 2023. You pleaded guilty on 8 January 2025 after your counsel had the opportunity to consider the Crown disclosure.

[57]   The Crown accepts and your counsel submits that you are entitled to a reduction of up to 25 per cent for your guilty pleas. I agree.

Remorse

[58]   The Corrections report writer and Dr Rogers assess that you are genuinely remorseful for getting yourselves involved in this operation. They say you have accepted responsibility for your actions. You have written the same to me. I accept that you are genuine in what you say. I agree that a discount of five per cent is appropriate for your remorse.

Previous good character

[59]   Section 9(2)(g) of the Sentencing Act says account should be taken of any evidence as to your previous good character. The evidence of your good character is that you have no prior convictions in either New Zealand or Australia and the four letters I have received from people who have known you for considerable periods and who attest to your good character and to your contributions to the community.

[60]   In R v Cole, Becroft J did not accept that an absence of convictions, together with what would seem to be a normal proper commitment to loved ones, on their own justified a good character reduction.20 However, that was in the context of concerted and considered offending over the period of a year.21 Your fall from grace was a single episode, even if it involved two trips to New Zealand.

[61]   Moreover, as Ms Dyhrberg submits, the Court of Appeal has accepted that people who have shown themselves generally law-abiding citizens of good character are usually entitled to invoke their creditable record in mitigation when they come before the Courts.22 Ms Li acknowledges that you are entitled to recognition for this. Ms Dyhrberg submits that I should also take into account, in the context of this discount, your prospects for rehabilitation.

[62]   I agree. However, in the overall context of your sentence, I consider a discount of 10 per cent is sufficient.

Personal circumstances

[63]   Ms Dyhrberg submits, by reference to the Supreme Court’s decision in Berkland that I should make a further discount in recognition of the causative link between your background and your offending. Ms Dyhrberg acknowledges that your background does not have the longstanding deprivation that often accompanies offending but submits that Dr Rogers’ report establishes a sufficient causative link.

20     R v Cole, above n 16, at [108].

21 At [103].

22     R v Howe [1982] 1 NZLR 618 (CA) at 629.

[64]I respectfully disagree.

[65]   Dr Rogers’ report establishes a link between your emotional state following the breakdown of your previous relationship and your poor decision-making in becoming involves in the methamphetamine importation. The Doctor then says your history of trauma “perhaps contributed” to that poor decision-making and engagement in self-destructive behaviour. That is as far as the Doctor is prepared to go. I do not accept that this is sufficient to establish a causative contribution, particularly when that trauma occurred well over 20 years ago and when you have managed to avoid any offending in the intervening years — for which you have been given reasonably generous credit. Accordingly, I decline any discount based on your personal circumstances.

Imprisonment of foreign national

[66]   It had been suggested that I should make a further reduction in recognition the fact that you are a foreign national, but you are a New Zealander and you have remained a New Zealander all your life. Moreover, you have been a frequent visitor to New Zealand over this time.  You  have  a  new  partner,  who  is  resident  in  New Zealand. So, I see no case of making any reduction for the fact that you are an Australian citizen as well as a New Zealand citizen.

[67]    Such isolation as you may feel in prison is nothing like that likely to be experienced by the defendants in Wan and Thai, who had scant previous connection with New Zealand.

Time on electronically monitored bail

[68]   Ms Dyhrberg and Ms Li agree I should make a further six month deduction for the time spent on electronically monitored bail and I do as well.

End sentence

[69]   The result is an end sentence of 17 years and six months’ imprisonment, which I consider appropriate to the gravity of your offending and to your personal circumstances.

Minimum period of imprisonment

[70]   The next question is whether I should impose a minimum period of imprisonment to meet the sentencing purposes identified in s 86(2) of the Sentencing Act. Those purposes are: holding you accountable for the harm done to any victim and to the community; deterrence; denunciation; and protecting the community.

[71]   Based on a sentence of 17 years and six months’ imprisonment, your standard minimum non-parole parole period would be five years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

[72]   Ms Li submits that this should be increased by up to a further four years and two months, to 10 years, to deter and denounce the significance of your offending.

[73]   Ms Dyhrberg submits that a minimum term of imprisonment is not warranted and would not be consistent with decisions of the Court of Appeal, which has held that lengthy terms of imprisonment and the standard non-parole period of a third of a finite term of imprisonment can be sufficient to meet the sentencing purposes in s 86(2).

[74]   Given the size of the importation for which you are responsible, and the dreadful harm caused by methamphetamine to those who become addicted to it and to society more generally, to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years would seem appropriate and consistent with recent decisions, notably those in Cole,

R v S and R v Kahlon.23

[75]   However, in Zhang, the Court of Appeal re-emphasised that minimum periods of imprisonment must not be imposed as a matter of routine or in mechanistic way, and that a sentencing judge must undertake a reasoned analysis as regards the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment and its length.24 In Tran v R and Hura v R, the Court of Appeal set aside minimum periods of imprisonment imposed where defendants were sentenced to lengthy periods of imprisonment for significant methamphetamine offending.25

23     R v Cole, above n 16; R v S, above n 10; R v Kahlon, above n 16.

24     Zhang v R, above n 11, at [169].

25     Tran v R [2021] NZCA 464, (2021) 30 CRNZ 430; Hura v R [2023] NZCA 7.

[76]   In Tran, the Court was satisfied that the non-parole periods that would have to be served under sentences of 12 years and four months’ imprisonment and 12 years and seven months’ imprisonment were sufficient, and that concerns about deterrence were outweighed by its assessment that the purposes of holding the offenders accountable, denunciation and protecting the community had been met by the lengthy sentences imposed.26

[77]   In Hura, the Court was satisfied that sentences of 16 years and eight months’ imprisonment and 14 years and four months’ imprisonment were sufficient to hold the defendants accountable, to denounce their conduct and were a significant deterrent to drug-related offending.27 The Court was also satisfied that the minimum non-parole periods of five years and seven months’ imprisonment and four years and nine months’ imprisonment were sufficient to protect the community, particularly where there were reasonable prospects for rehabilitation.28

[78]   I have reached a similar conclusion in your case, Mr Tuumaga. Indeed, I consider the argument against imposing a minimum period of imprisonment is even stronger in your case. Your finite sentence of 17 years and six months’ imprisonment is lengthy already. It meets the purposes of holding you accountable and denouncing your conduct. On the logic of the Court of Appeal in Hura, it should be a significant deterrent to drug-related offending. Given that you are assessed as having good rehabilitative prospects and a low likelihood of re-offending, I am also satisfied that the community is adequately protected by a minimum non-parole period of five years and 10 months.

[79]Accordingly, I do not impose a minimum period of imprisonment.

Imposition of sentence

[80]Mr Tuumaga, would you please stand.

26     Tran v R, above n 24, at [54]–[55].

27     Hura v R, above n 24, at [60] and [70].

28     At [62]–[63] and [71].

[81]   On the charges of importing methamphetamine and of possession of methamphetamine for supply, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 17 years and six months. The sentences are to be served concurrently.

[82]Please stand down, Mr Tuumaga.

G J van Bohemen J