Ruka v The King - [2025] NZHC 505

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2025-412-000001

[2025] NZHC 505

BETWEEN
RICHARD RUKA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 10 March 2025 via AVL from Wellington

Appearances:

S A Saunderson-Warner for Appellant J C Collins for Respondent

Judgment:

13 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] Richard Ruka appeals his sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment, following his pleas of guilty to charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply,1 unlawful possession of a firearm,2 and possession of methylphenidate for supply.3

[2] The issue on appeal is whether the Judge erred in giving a 12 month uplift for possession of methylphenidate for supply, bringing the starting point to 54 months’ imprisonment. Mr Ruka says this sentence is manifestly excessive.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(a). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1). Maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment and or fine not exceeding
$5,000.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(b). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

Ruka v R [2025] NZHC 505 [13 March 2025]

What happened?

[3] On 27 March 2024, Police executed a search warrant at Mr Ruka’s Dunedin address on Middleton Road. They located a cut-down, Marlin brand lever action 30- 30 calibre rifle in Mr Ruka’s wardrobe. Other ammunition, although not for the rifle, was also located. Mr Ruka has no firearms licence.

[4] In a lock box, police further discovered 97 tablets (735 milligrams) of Ritalin. Ritalin is a Class B drug and is the brand name for methylphenidate. Alongside the Ritalin was $4650 cash, a set of scales and small plastic bags. There were also 24 small plastic bags, which each contained approximately 0.24 grams of methamphetamine. This added up to a total quantity of 5.76 grams of methamphetamine.

[5] Mr Ruka admitted that he owned the lockbox and its contents. He also claimed ownership of the rifle.

The sentencing decision

The starting point

[6] As Mr Ruka possessed 5.76 grams of methamphetamine, the Judge placed the offending within the top of band one and the bottom of band two of the R v Zhang categories.4

[7] The Judge considered the scales, cash and packaging located by Police, indicated commerciality 5 and characterised Mr Ruka’s offending as a “commercial enterprise,” rather than “addiction-driven.”6 He described Mr Ruka as a “street dealer working alone” and considered that Mr Ruka’s offending was motivated by “lifestyle,” rather than the desire to consume methamphetamine.7

4 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648. R v Ruka [2024] NZDC 30067 [Decision
under appeal] at [8].
5 At [8].
6 At [9].
7 At [13].

[8] In rejecting the submission that Mr Ruka’s moral culpability should be reduced because of his unemployment,8 the Judge considered that Mr Ruka was “not without means,” had some available money, and had a choice to apply for a benefit, yet chose to deal in drugs.9 Weighing these aggravating factors, the…

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 Ruka v The King

Details

AGLC: Ruka v The King [2025] NZHC 505
Case: [2025] NZHC 505
Decision Date: 13 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Richard Ruka appealed his three years and three months’ imprisonment sentence for methamphetamine possession for supply, unlawful possession of a firearm, and possession of methylphenidate for supply. The crux of the appeal was the 12-month uplift for the methylphenidate charge, which Ruka argued was excessive, making the overall starting point of 54 months' imprisonment manifestly excessive. The Crown argued that there was no fixed formula for converting a standalone starting point to an uplift on a lead sentence, and that the courts retain wide discretion in this regard. The court found that while the starting point for the methamphetamine charge was appropriate, the uplift for the methylphenidate charge was excessive. The court concluded that a six-month uplift was more consistent with the authorities and sufficient to capture the overall gravity of Ruka's offending. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to two years and nine months' imprisonment.

Orders