Samson vs R - [2025] NZCA 159

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA760/2024
[2025] NZCA 159

BETWEEN	MAIRIAU SAMSON Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

CA752/2024
BETWEEN	TOKOFA PAULO TOROMA Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	26 February 2025
Court:	Hinton, Woolford and Edwards JJ
Counsel:	B J M Meyer and V M Markova for Appellant in CA760/2024 J M Hudson for Appellant in CA752/2024 M W Nathan and T A O T Veikune for Respondent in CA760/2024 and CA752/2024
Judgment:	9 May 2025 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal against sentence in CA760/2024 is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence in CA752/2024 is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Hinton J)

On 14 November 2024, following guilty pleas shortly before the commencement of a jury trial, Wilkinson-Smith J sentenced Mr Samson and Mr Toroma to two years and four months’ imprisonment and three years’ imprisonment respectively, each for one charge of participating in an organised criminal group.[1] This related to their roles in a syndicate involved in the commercial importation of over 100kg of methamphetamine into New Zealand through the use of corrupt baggage handlers at Auckland International Airport.
[1]R v Piukana and ors [2024] NZHC 3428 [Judgment under appeal]; Crimes Act 1961, s 98A. Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
Mr Samson and Mr Toroma now appeal their sentences.
Mr Samson contends that the High Court erred by adopting an excessively high starting point and failing to give adequate consideration to personal mitigating factors. He says that approach ruled out the possibility of home detention and resulted in a manifestly excessive end sentence.
Mr Toroma also contends that his starting point was too high, particularly when considering parity with Mr Samson and Mr Kimela Piukana, a co-defendant who acted as a messenger for the syndicate.
The Court must allow an appeal against sentence if it is satisfied that there is a material error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed.[2] A manifestly excessive sentence constitutes a material error.

Background

[2]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.

We adopt the Judge’s summary of the facts in sentencing the two appellants. To avoid confusion, we note the summary refers to Mr Matangi Piukana, the older brother of Mr Kimela Piukana. Mr Matangi Piukana was a key player in the syndicate, as opposed to Mr Kimela Piukana, on whose sentencing the appellants rely.
[5]       In June 2021, the New Zealand Police commenced a joint investigation with the New Zealand Customs service (Operation Selena). Operation Selena arose after previous joint investigations identified a number of syndicates involved in the importation of drugs, mostly methamphetamine, including two syndicates operating out of Auckland International Airport (the Airport).
[6]       One of these syndicates was directed by Nigel Iuvale — a patched member of the King Cobra gang and a co-offender in this offending.
[7]       Throughout 2021, Matangi Piukana, a close associate of Mr Iuvale who worked for Air New Zealand as a Service Delivery Leader at…

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 Samson vs R

Details

AGLC: Samson vs R [2025] NZCA 159
Case: [2025] NZCA 159
Decision Date: 9 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Samson v R and Toroma v R, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered appeals against the sentences imposed on Mr Samson and Mr Toroma for their roles in participating in an organised criminal group involved in the importation of over 100kg of methamphetamine. Mr Samson and Mr Toroma argued that the starting points for their sentences were excessively high and that insufficient consideration was given to their personal mitigating factors. The Crown argued that the sentences were appropriate given the gravity of the offending and the significant breach of trust involved.

The Court of Appeal found that the starting points for both Mr Samson and Mr Toroma were appropriate. The syndicate's offending was deemed significantly more serious than in comparable cases due to the unprecedented use of corrupt baggage handlers at Auckland International Airport, the sophistication of the operation, and the large quantity of drugs involved. The Court found that both appellants had integral roles within the group, with Mr Samson acting as a courier and Mr Toroma breaching his trusted position as a baggage handler. As such, the Court considered the starting points of three years and six months for Mr Samson and four years for Mr Toroma to be within the appropriate range.

Regarding the personal mitigating factors, the Court acknowledged Mr Samson's efforts to address his substance abuse and employment during his time on bail but found that these factors did not warrant a greater discount. The Court held that the modest allowances made by the sentencing judge were appropriate.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding that the sentences imposed were neither manifestly excessive nor in error. The appeals against sentence in CA760/2024 (Samson) and CA752/2024 (Toroma) were both dismissed.

Orders