Rangirangi v Police

[2023] NZHC 2554

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2023-463-49

[2023] NZHC 2554

BETWEEN

CHRIS RANGIRANGI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:

13 September 2023

Appearances:

A Hill for Appellant

T Afoa for Respondent

Judgment:

13 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 13 September 2023 at 11.00 am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:

Gordon Pilditch, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Rotorua A Hill, Rotorua

RANGIRANGI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2554 [13 September 2023]

[1]                 Mr Rangirangi pleaded guilty in the District Court to charges of cultivating cannabis plants and being in possession of cannabis plants and cannabis oil for the purpose of supply. On 18 May 2023, Judge E P Paul sentenced Mr Rangirangi to two years two months imprisonment.1

[2]                 Mr Rangirangi appeals against sentence. He contends the Judge failed to give him adequate discount for his guilty pleas and that he failed to provide any discount to reflect his remorse and rehabilitative prospects. He says these mitigating factors ought to have reduced the sentence to one of two years imprisonment or less, meaning that a sentence of home detention would have been both available and appropriate.

The charges

[3]                 The charges were laid after the police searched the residential address occupied by Mr Rangirangi and his son on the morning of 12 October 2022.

[4]                 The police located a large blue plastic drum in the garage that had been filled with cannabis plant material. The cannabis was found to weigh 7.97 kilograms. In a bedroom at the address the police found a white bucket containing 1.035 kilograms of cannabis head material stored in plastic bread bags. In a bucket in the lounge the police found numerous plastic ziplock bags together with a set of scales. In the same room the police found 98 grams of cannabis plant material in two separate plastic bags.

[5]                 In a bedroom at the address the police also found a small plastic container that contained three cannabis oil capsules, as well as another plastic container that held 60 cannabis oil capsules. In the same bedroom the police found a firearms safe that contained a notebook suggestive of being a “tick book”, together with the sum of

$5,000 in cash.

[6]                 When the police searched the garage they found 95 cannabis seedlings growing in a purpose built cultivation area that had grow lights installed. In the boot of a vehicle parked on the driveway at the address the police found 22 cannabis seedlings

1      Police v Rangirangi [2023] NZDC 9935.

in a yellow tub. They also found a bucket containing 130 cannabis seeds in the lounge of the address.

The sentence

[7]                 The Judge took a starting point of two years nine months imprisonment on all charges. Mr Rangirangi does not take issue with the starting point.

[8]                 The Judge then allowed a discount of seven months, or 20 per cent, to reflect guilty pleas. This produced the end sentence of two years two months imprisonment.

The appeal

[9]                 On Mr Rangirangi’s behalf, Mr Hill contends the Judge ought to have allowed a full discount of 25 per cent to reflect Mr Rangirangi’s guilty pleas. Mr Hill contends the Judge should also have applied a discount of around five per cent to reflect remorse expressed by Mr Rangirangi in a letter he had written to the Judge on the day of sentencing as well as his rehabilitation prospects. Reduction of the sentence to reflect these factors would have reduced the sentence to the point where home detention was a viable option.

Decision

Discount for guilty pleas

[10]The Judge fixed the discount to be given for guilty pleas in the following way:

[13] I do not agree with Mr  Hill that  you entered  your guilty plea at the first opportunity. You pleaded not guilty, you went to a case review hearing and initially the matter was set down for a hearing, although you then pleaded guilty. I would extend close to the maximum discount of 20 per cent for that plea.

[11]             Mr Rangirangi first appeared on the charges on 20 October 2022. His counsel intimated guilty pleas and sought an adjournment to 3 November 2022. On 3 November 2022 Mr Rangirangi entered not guilty pleas and elected trial before a Judge sitting without a jury. Over the next two months Mr Rangirangi’s counsel entered into negotiations with the police relating to possible resolution of the charges. The police

declined to agree to a proposal involving the withdrawal of charges they had laid against Mr Rangirangi’s son. The police also declined to resolve the charges on the basis that Mr Rangirangi would plead guilty to one of the charges and his son would plead guilty to the remainder. In January 2023, once it became clear that these efforts were unlikely to be successful, Mr Rangirangi indicated that he intended to plead guilty to the charges. He then entered his guilty pleas on 13 February 2023.

[12]             This series of events makes it clear that although Mr Rangirangi intimated guilty pleas when the charges were first called he subsequently entered n pleas of not guilty and then endeavoured to persuade the police to withdraw some of the charges. Mr Rangirangi told the writer of the pre-sentence report that he expected his son to plead guilty to some of the charges and that he was surprised when he (Mr Rangirangi) was charged. This suggests Mr Rangirangi did not intend to plead guilty to the charges from the outset.

[13]             Viewed against that backdrop, I am satisfied the Judge was not required to give Mr Rangirangi a greater discount than 20 per cent. This ground of appeal fails as a result.

Remorse and rehabilitative prospects

[14]             The pre-sentence report did not provide Mr Rangirangi with a great deal of assistance in relation to these issues. It contained the following statement:

No  remorse  or  regret  was  able   to   identified   and   when   prompted  [Mr Rangirangi] superficially apologised to the Court.

[15]             Perhaps in response to this observation Mr Rangirangi provided a letter to the Court on the day of sentencing in which he expressed remorse. However, I do not consider this obliged the Judge to provide a discreet discount to reflect remorse. It needs to be considered in light of the impression he gave the writer of the pre-sentence report. Mr Rangirangi’s ability to seek a discount for remorse is also significantly hampered by the fact that he has several previous convictions some years ago for offending involving drugs. These go back to 1993 and the Judge rightly did not view them as an aggravating factor. However, they suggest it is now somewhat late in the piece for Mr Rangirangi to express genuine and meaningful remorse.

[16]             Mr Hill also relies on the fact that Mr Rangirangi is now 61 years of age and appears to be well respected in his local community. Any credit to be given for these factors is nullified by the fact that he was prepared to deal in drugs in a significant way in the same community.

[17]             Further, there is no suggestion that Mr Rangirangi has issues with addiction or other matters that require rehabilitative intervention. In the absence of any demonstrated need for rehabilitation it is no surprise the Judge did not provide a discount to reflect Mr Rangirangi’s rehabilitative prospects.

Result

[18]The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Lang J