R v Wiki - [2013] NZHC 3439

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2011-077-1751 [2013] NZHC 3439

THE QUEEN

v

WARREN WIKI

Hearing: 17 December 2013

Appearances: F Pilditch for Crown
J N Briscoe for Prisoner

Judgment: 17 December 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua
Counsel:
J N Briscoe

R v WIKI [2013] NZHC 3439 [17 December 2013]

[1] Mr Wiki, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to three charges of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply, one charge of offering to supply methamphetamine, one charge of supplying methamphetamine and a charge of offering to sell cannabis. All of the methamphetamine-related charges carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The charge of offering to sell cannabis carries a maximum sentence of eight years imprisonment.

Background

[2] Your offending came to light after the police commenced a large scale operation designed to detect drug dealing activities occurring in the Bay of Plenty area. During the police operation, they obtained access to a number of intercepted communications that demonstrated quite clearly that you were dealing in methamphetamine and cannabis on a regular basis. Over the period of the operation, you were offering to sell cannabis and methamphetamine to others on a virtually daily basis. The summary of facts records that you had at least 26 different customers, many of whom you were dealing with on a very regular basis.

[3] It is not possible from the intercepted communications to definitively determine how much methamphetamine and cannabis you supplied during the period in question. The Crown can definitely point to the fact that you supplied a total of five grams of methamphetamine. During the course of the operation, however, you discussed supplying a total of 31.9 grams of methamphetamine.

[4] I take your culpability to be that of a busy street dealer selling both methamphetamine and cannabis in relatively small amounts to friends and associates.

Sentencing Act 2002

[5] In any case of commercial dealing in methamphetamine, a sentence of imprisonment must be the appropriate starting point. That is the only way in which the sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation of this type of offending can properly be given effect. Importantly, however, it is necessary to select a starting point that reflects sentences imposed in other broadly similar cases.

Starting point

[6] The starting point to be imposed in relation to your offending is to be determined having regard to the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Fatu.1 In that case, the Court of Appeal identified the starting points to be applied in respect of methamphetamine offending having a commercial element. For cases involving the supply of up to five grams of methamphetamine (Band 1), a starting point of between two and four years imprisonment will be appropriate. For offending
involving between five and 250 grams of methamphetamine, the starting point will be between three and nine years imprisonment (Band 2).

[7] Counsel agree that your offending falls either towards the top of Band 1,…

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 Wiki

Details

AGLC: R v Wiki [2013] NZHC 3439
Case: [2013] NZHC 3439
Decision Date: 17 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Warren Wiki, was sentenced by Justice Lang in the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, on 17 December 2013. Wiki had pleaded guilty to multiple drug-related charges, including possession of methamphetamine for supply, offering to supply methamphetamine, supplying methamphetamine, and offering to sell cannabis. The maximum penalty for each methamphetamine-related charge was life imprisonment, while the maximum penalty for the cannabis charge was eight years imprisonment.

The legal issues the court was required to address included determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering aggravating and mitigating factors, and applying discounts for Wiki's early guilty pleas. The court had to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation against Wiki's efforts to rehabilitate himself and his previous convictions.

The court first established a starting point of three years and nine months imprisonment, taking into account the quantity of drugs involved and Wiki's history of drug dealing. It applied an uplift of five months to account for Wiki's previous convictions, bringing the sentence to four years and two months. Wiki's efforts to address his drug issues and express remorse led the court to apply a discount of six months, resulting in a sentence of three years and eight months. The court further reduced the sentence by ten months to reflect the time Wiki had spent on strict bail conditions, leaving a sentence of two years and one month. Finally, the court applied a nine-month discount for Wiki's early guilty pleas, resulting in a final sentence of two years and one month imprisonment. Wiki was ineligible for home detention due to the nature and gravity of his offending.

In summary, Wiki was sentenced to two years and one month imprisonment on each of the methamphetamine-related charges, to be served concurrently, and five months imprisonment on the cannabis charge, also to be served concurrently.

Orders