Ropitini v The Queen - [2020] NZHC 3426

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2020-425-29

CRI-2020-425-30 [2020] NZHC 3426

BETWEEN
TAN ROPITINI

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 14 December 2020

Counsel:

S G Vidal for Appellant R W Donnelly for Crown

Judgment:

18 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 December 2020 at 2.30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

ROPITINI v R [2020] NZHC 3426 [18 December 2020]

[1] Tan Ropitini was, on a number of charges, sentenced by Judge Farnan in the District Court to 11 months’ imprisonment, but with leave to apply for home detention.1

[2] His convictions (on guilty plea) were for supply of methamphetamine; possession of methamphetamine for supply and common assault.

[3] Mr Ropitini appeals the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. He asserts that there were two errors in the sentencing considerations:

(a)because he was a prisoner who before his sentence had been recalled while on parole (on an earlier sentence), the Judge should have taken into account when sentencing him on the present charges his pre- sentence time on recall in prison; and

(b)the Judge took into account, as an aggravating factor, the presence of
$2,900 in cash found in Mr Ropitini’s bedroom.

Facts

[4] On 19 September 2019 police executed a production order on Mr Ropitini’s cell phone, for the period 21 August 2019 to 19 September 2019, for evidence of supplying methamphetamine. Text messages examined showed that Mr Ropitini had been organising and selling quarter gram to one gram amounts of methamphetamine. On 3 October 2019 Mr Ropitini was interviewed by police and admitted supplying methamphetamine. He described himself as a “middle man”, connecting people who possessed methamphetamine in touch with those who wanted to purchase it.

[5] A second production order was executed for the period up to Mr Ropitini’s arrest. Again, the text messages showed that he was organising and selling methamphetamine on a regular basis in quantities between a quarter gram and one gram. On occasions Mr Ropitini would arrange more than one sale a day and he had repeat customers. On one occasion Mr Ropitini discussed the prospect of pre-selling

1 R v Ropitini [2020] NZDC 18735.

half an ounce of methamphetamine in quarter gram units. In exchange for this transaction, he would receive a half gram of methamphetamine.

[6] On 3 October 2019, $2,900 cash was found in Mr Ropitini’s bedroom, although Mr Ropitini denied being the owner. On pleading guilty, however, Mr Ropitini accepted the Summary of Facts which recorded that the cash was linked to the supply of methamphetamine. Judge Farnan made a forfeiture order in relation to the cash.2

[7] The common assault charge arises from a subsequent altercation between Mr Ropitini and another inmate when he was in custody at the Invercargill Prison on 6 April 2020. CCTV footage showed Mr Ropitini and the victim walking in the exercise area. Without warning, Mr Ropitini roundhouse kicked the victim in…

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 Ropitini v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ropitini v The Queen [2020] NZHC 3426
Case: [2020] NZHC 3426
Decision Date: 18 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tan Ropitini appealed against his 11-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Court, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was based on two grounds: the trial judge failed to consider the time Ropitini spent on recall while on parole, and the presence of $2,900 in cash found in his bedroom was incorrectly considered as an aggravating factor. The High Court found that the trial judge should have applied a discount for the time Ropitini spent on recall, which would have resulted in a nine-month sentence instead of the 11-month sentence imposed. The Court found no error in considering the cash as an aggravating factor, as it was linked to the methamphetamine supply. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, reduced the sentence to nine months' imprisonment, and maintained the other conditions of the original sentence.

Orders