R v Waiariki - [2018] NZHC 31

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 31

THE QUEEN

v

NATASHA RUBY WAIARIKI

Counsel:
R Georgiou for Crown

V C Nisbet for Defendant

Sentence:

31 January 2018

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Ms Waiariki, you appear for sentence on the following charges:

(1) one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine;1

(2) one representative charge of offering to supply methamphetamine;2

(3)two representative charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply;3 and

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
2      Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
3      Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

R v WAIARIKI [2018] NZHC 31 [31 January 2018]

(4) one charge of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine.4

[2] This morning I will:

(1) set out your offending;

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

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

(4) state your sentence.

Offending

[3] 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.

[4] Police intercepted communications and carried out a visual surveillance of two principal targets, Mr Blance and Mr Berkland. It is alleged by the Crown that 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 at 40 Coates Street, Tawa. Associates would then on-supply the methamphetamine to others.

[5] You are one of the associates. Between 2 March and 11 April 2017, visual surveillance evidence shows you visited 40 Coates Street on at least 14 occasions.

[6] The police investigation also involved undercover police officers.

[7] The summary of facts provides details of specific instances of your offending as detected by undercover police officers, namely:

4 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2A)(a). Maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.

(1) five instances of supplying methamphetamine on 9 December 2016,

19 December 2016, 31 January 2017, 1 February 2017 and 2 March

2017;

(2) four instances of offering to supply methamphetamine on 2 December

2016, 27 February 2017, 9 March 2017 and 15 March 2017; and

(3) three occasions of possession of methamphetamine for supply on

14 December 2016, 19 December 2016 and 2 March 2017.

[8] In relation to the quantities, you supplied to undercover officers 4.25 grams of methamphetamine and offered to supply one gram of methamphetamine. You were then observed by undercover police officers possessing five grams of methamphetamine for the purposes of supply.

[9] An analysis of your phone messages is attached as an appendix to the summary of facts. The summary outlines 49 incidents of supplying methamphetamine and
67 incidents of offering to supply methamphetamine. The analysis shows you supplied at least 11.55 grams…

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 Waiariki

Details

AGLC: R v Waiariki [2018] NZHC 31
Case: [2018] NZHC 31
Decision Date: 31 January 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Waiariki, the defendant was sentenced for various drug-related charges, including supplying and possessing methamphetamine for supply. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand. The primary legal issues involved determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, and ultimately imposing a sentence that balanced the severity of the offence with the defendant's personal circumstances.

The court was required to assess the gravity of the defendant's involvement in the methamphetamine supply chain, considering the quantity of drugs involved, the frequency of transactions, and the degree of planning. The court also needed to evaluate personal mitigating factors, such as the defendant's young age, background, drug addiction, and expressions of remorse. The court had to decide on an appropriate starting point for the sentence, make adjustments based on both aggravating and mitigating factors, and finally determine the sentence, ensuring it was proportionate to the offending and consistent with sentencing precedents.

Collins J set out the defendant's offending, which included multiple instances of supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine, indicating a significant degree of premeditation and planning. The court considered the commercial nature of the offending, the amount of drugs involved, and the defendant's role within the drug distribution network. The court adopted a starting point of four years' imprisonment, reflecting the social harm caused by methamphetamine, but made adjustments for the defendant's personal circumstances and early guilty plea. The final sentence was two years and five months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently.

The court quashed the post-sentence conditions relating to a previous burglary charge. The defendant's sentences for each charge were to be served concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of two years and five months' imprisonment.

Orders