Simi v The Queen - [2016] NZHC 1794

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-204 [2016] NZHC 1794

DEDRICK SIMI

v

THE QUEEN

Hearing: 1 August 2016

Appearances:

M Edgar for the Appellant
H Benson-Pope for the Respondent

Judgment:

4 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 August 2016 at 12.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Solicitors:

Kayes, Fletcher and Walker, Auckland.

SIMI v R [2016] NZHC 1794 [4 August 2016]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Dedrick Dallas Simi, pleaded guilty following a sentence indication to seven charges of selling cannabis and one charge of possessing methamphetamine.

[2] He now appeals against his sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment, on the basis that the Judge took the top of the range indicated by him at the sentence indication before deducting mitigating factors and did not consider home detention which he had signalled as possibly appropriate.

Factual background

[3] Mr Simi was part of a wider cannabis dealing operation, in which nine other individuals were charged with supplying and selling cannabis. The operation involved cannabis supply and distribution networks set up by three principal offenders, who sourced the cannabis, prepared it into saleable amounts and supplied it to others for on-selling purposes.

[4] The cannabis was prepared and distributed to associates who either sold the cannabis “tinnies” from their houses or through a “dial a tinnie” service whereby members of the public could text members of the network and have cannabis delivered to their house. Text data obtained from the accused’s phones over the course of the Police investigation estimated the combined sale of cannabis as in the range of $25,000 - $30,000 per week.

[5] On 5 June 2015, Mr Simi was recorded sending messages to one of the principal offenders, to buy cannabis from him, and texting others to announce he was “back on deliveries”. Other text messages to similar effect were recorded on 16 June
2015, 9 July 2015, 29 July 2015, 14 August 2015, 16 August 2015, and 25 August

2015. In other text exchanges he arranged times and places to meet with various individuals.

[6] There were eight meetings between Mr Simi and the one of the principal offenders to obtain more cannabis for sale in June 2015 (mostly on consecutive

days), seven meetings in July 2015 (from 24 – 30 July) and 20 meetings in August, with two meetings a day at times.

[7] The seven charges of receiving and selling bags of pre-prepared tinnies involved selling bags containing 35 – 37 tinnies. The Crown estimated that the sale of at least one bag of tinnies per day from 10 June 2015 until his arrest on
4 November 2015, would equate to 7 ounces of cannabis per week (almost 200 grams) and $4,200 in sales. This equates to 7 kg of cannabis and $87,000 in sales.

[8] When Mr Simi was arrested, he was found with a small amount of a substance identified as methamphetamine in his…

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 Simi v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Simi v The Queen [2016] NZHC 1794
Case: [2016] NZHC 1794
Decision Date: 4 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Simi v The Queen involved Dedrick Simi, who appealed against his 25-month imprisonment sentence for multiple charges of selling cannabis and possessing methamphetamine. The appeal was based on the assertion that the sentencing judge incorrectly applied the top of the indicated sentence range and failed to consider home detention as a possible alternative. The court had to decide whether the sentencing judge erred in his application of the indicated range, the discount for restrictive bail conditions, and the consideration of mitigating factors including rehabilitation efforts.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in his approach. The indicated sentence range provided by the judge was correctly interpreted as a starting point of 27 months, with potential deductions based on a positive pre-sentence report. The judge allowed for a two-month deduction for the mitigating factors, resulting in a final sentence of 25 months. The court also noted that the judge was generous in providing a one-month reduction for restrictive bail conditions despite multiple breaches. Regarding home detention, the judge clearly articulated his reasons for not considering it, focusing on deterrence and the need to hold Simi accountable for his involvement in the drug operation.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the range that could be justified by accepted sentencing principles and that the appeal did not demonstrate an error in the sentencing discretion.

Orders