R v Uputaua - [2017] NZHC 2320

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-092-11616 [2017] NZHC 2320

THE QUEEN

v

FRED UPUTAUA

Hearing: 25 September 2017

Appearances:

L Radich for Crown
D Young for Defendant

Sentence:

25 September 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v UPUTAUA [2017] NZHC 2320 [25 September 2017]

[1] Mr Uputaua, you have now pleaded guilty to a charge of being in possession of 14.9 kilograms of methamphetamine for supply, attempting to import methamphetamine on two occasions and two charges of being in possession of cocaine for supply. You pleaded guilty after I provided you with a sentence indication on 11 August 2017.1

[2] I do not propose to traverse the facts of your offending again because they are fully set out in my sentence indication remarks, and these will be annexed and form part of these remarks. I reached a conclusion that the charge of being in possession of 14.9 kilograms of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply warranted a starting point of 15 years imprisonment. I then added an uplift of two years to reflect two charges of attempting to import methamphetamine. The first of those charges related to the attempted importation of 350 grams of methamphetamine, whilst the second related to the attempted importation of 1.3 kilograms of methamphetamine.

[3] I added a further uplift of one year to reflect the two charges of being in possession of cocaine for supply. This related to two separate instances of possession. The first related to 1.9 kilograms of cocaine. This was found in your possession at the time that the 14.9 kilograms of methamphetamine was found in your possession. In addition, the police found a further quantity of 31.7 grams of cocaine at the address at which you were then living.

[4] This produced an end sentence of 18 years. I indicated I would give you a deduction of around 20 per cent, or three years nine months, to reflect guilty pleas if you were to enter them shortly after the hearing. You duly accepted that indication.

[5] The only issue I now need to determine is whether to reduce the sentence further to reflect any other mitigating factors that the pre-sentence report has brought
to light.

1 R v Uputaua [2017] NZHC 1921.

[6] On your behalf, Mr Young suggests that several factors warrant a further discount. The first of these is that you were on restrictive bail conditions for a considerable period prior to the date on which you entered your pleas. In some circumstances the Court can provide a discount to reflect restrictive bail conditions, but these must generally constitute a considerable intrusion on the freedom of movement of the offender before they can be given discrete recognition. In your case, your bail conditions required you to observe a daily curfew between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am. I do not consider that to be an overly onerous restriction. Furthermore, in the weeks…

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 Uputaua

Details

AGLC: R v Uputaua [2017] NZHC 2320
Case: [2017] NZHC 2320
Decision Date: 25 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Fred Uputaua, was convicted of multiple drug-related charges, including possession of 14.9 kilograms of methamphetamine for supply, two charges of attempting to import methamphetamine, and two charges of being in possession of cocaine for supply. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for Uputaua, taking into account the gravity of the offences, the defendant's role in the drug syndicate, and any mitigating factors. The court also needed to determine whether to impose a minimum term of imprisonment in light of the serious nature of the drug-related offences.

The court considered the defendant's role in the drug syndicate, which was that of a support player who facilitated the transportation and handling of drugs. The court acknowledged the defendant's involvement in the possession and supply of methamphetamine and cocaine but determined that he did not play a leading role in the syndicate. The court then calculated the starting point for each charge, taking into account the guidelines set out in previous case law. The court added uplifts for the attempted importation of methamphetamine and the possession of cocaine for supply, resulting in a total starting point of 18 years imprisonment. The court then applied a discount for guilty pleas, reducing the starting point by three years and nine months, resulting in an end sentence of 14 years and three months imprisonment. The court also determined that a minimum term of imprisonment should be imposed to reflect the seriousness of the drug-related offences.

Uputaua was sentenced to 13 years and 9 months imprisonment for the charge of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply, with a minimum term of six years and nine months imprisonment before being eligible for parole. Concurrent sentences were imposed for the other charges, resulting in a total sentence of 18 years imprisonment. The court considered the defendant's remorse and the effect of the sentence on his family but ultimately determined that the seriousness of the drug-related offences required a significant sentence. The court also noted that personal circumstances count for less in cases of serious drug offending.

Orders