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,…

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 Rangirangi v Police

Details

AGLC: Rangirangi v Police [2023] NZHC 2554
Case: [2023] NZHC 2554
Decision Date: 13 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rangirangi v Police, the appellant, Chris Rangirangi, appealed against his sentence imposed by Judge E P Paul in the District Court. Rangirangi had pleaded guilty to cultivating cannabis plants and being in possession of cannabis plants and cannabis oil for the purpose of supply. The sentence imposed was two years and two months imprisonment. Rangirangi argued that the sentence was too severe because the Judge did not adequately discount the sentence for his guilty pleas, his remorse, and his rehabilitative prospects. He contended that these factors should have reduced the sentence to one of two years imprisonment or less, making a sentence of home detention both available and appropriate.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Judge was required to give Rangirangi a greater discount than 20 per cent for his guilty pleas, and whether the Judge should have provided a discount to reflect Rangirangi's remorse and rehabilitative prospects. The court found that Rangirangi did not enter his guilty pleas at the first opportunity, and therefore the Judge was not required to give him a greater discount than 20 per cent. The court also found that Rangirangi's expression of remorse was not genuine and meaningful, and that there was no demonstrated need for rehabilitation. Therefore, the Judge did not err in not providing a discount to reflect these factors.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of two years and two months imprisonment was upheld. The court found that the Judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors in determining the sentence, and that the sentence was not excessive. The court noted that Rangirangi had a history of drug-related offending, and that his involvement in the cultivation and supply of cannabis was significant. The court also noted that Rangirangi had not shown any genuine remorse for his actions, and that there was no demonstrated need for rehabilitation. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and proportionate to the offending.

Orders