Rapata v The King - [2025] NZHC 2217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2025-488-75 [2025] NZHC 2217

BETWEENWAYNE WHAKAITI TUMANAKO RAPATA
Appellant

AND THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 7 August 2025

Appearances: W T Main (on behalf of S Thode) for Appellant P Hamber for Respondent

7 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 7 August 2025 at 3.30 pm
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Thode Utting, Auckland
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

RAPATA v R [2025] NZHC 2217 [7 August 2025]

[1] Mr Rapata pleaded guilty in the District Court to 12 charges relating to the possession and supply of methamphetamine and cannabis. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to provide the access code to his cellphone. On 10 June 2025,
Judge D J McDonald sentenced Mr Rapata to four years imprisonment.1

[2] Mr Rapata appeals against sentence. He contends the Judge selected a starting point for the sentence that was too high and that he failed to apply appropriate discounts to reflect mitigating factors. Mr Rapata says that these errors resulted in the Judge imposing a sentence that was manifestly excessive.

The offending

[3] On 2 May 2024, the police pulled over a vehicle that was linked to a person they wanted to speak to. When the vehicle stopped, the police found that Mr Rapata was the driver. He was not the person they had been seeking when they stopped the vehicle. However, whilst speaking to Mr Rapata the police officers noticed a small quantity of cannabis in the centre console of his vehicle. They then exercised their powers of warrantless search and discovered further quantities of drugs in the vehicle. They found a small bag containing three grams of cannabis in Mr Rapata’s wallet. In a Nike bag they found methamphetamine having a total weight of 38.33 grams.

[4] When the police asked Mr Rapata to provide the access code to his cellphone he refused to do so. They then seized the cellphone. Subsequent analysis of data extracted from the device revealed that Mr Rapata had supplied and offered to supply methamphetamine and cannabis on numerous occasions between 13 and 25 April 2024. The total amount of methamphetamine involved cannot be established. At sentencing, the Crown contended that the total amount of methamphetamine involved was 141.33 grams. The Judge sentenced Mr Rapata on this basis.

1 R v Rapata [2025] NZDC 12326.

The sentence

[5] In setting the starting point the Judge referred to the guideline judgments of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in Zhang v R2 and Berkland v R.3 The Judge considered that Mr Rapata had played a significant role in the offending because, as his counsel accepted, he was managing his own operation and was motivated both by addiction and financial gain. He had been running a drug-dealing operation as a sole trader at a wholesale level. This was…

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 Rapata v The King

Details

AGLC: Rapata v The King [2025] NZHC 2217
Case: [2025] NZHC 2217
Decision Date: 7 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wayne Whakaiti Tumanako Rapata appealed against his sentence on the basis that the District Court Judge had set a starting point that was too high and failed to apply appropriate discounts to reflect mitigating factors. The appeal was dismissed by Justice Lang. The starting point was appropriate given the quantity of methamphetamine involved and Mr Rapata's role as a wholesaler. The Judge applied a five per cent discount to reflect Mr Rapata's addiction issues, which was appropriate given the overlap with other mitigating factors identified in a report tendered under section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The Judge also applied a discount of 10 per cent to reflect Mr Rapata's guilty pleas and mitigating factors identified in the report. The Judge declined to apply any discount for remorse, but this was not an error. The Judge also reduced the sentence by six months to reflect the time Mr Rapata had spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail, which was very generous. Overall, the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. Justice Lang confirmed the original sentence of four years imprisonment.

Orders