Legal Research
Cases
Tai v The the Queen

Tai v The the Queen

Case [2022] NZCA 403 26 August 2022

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA174/2022
[2022] NZCA 403

BETWEEN	TRISTIAN JORDAN TAI Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	13 July 2022
Court:	Miller, Lang and Cull JJ
Counsel:	D J Dufty for Appellant B D Tantrum and V E Squires for Respondent
Judgment:	26 August 2022 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cull J)

Mr Tai pleaded guilty to three sets of charges involving drug and firearm offending, wounding with attempt to injure, perverting the course of justice and sentence breaches. He appeals his sentence of 10 years and four months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge MacKenzie in the District Court at Rotorua.[1]
[1]R v Tai [2022] NZDC 4199 [Sentencing notes].
Mr Tai appeals on three grounds. First, he says the starting point was too high based on a mischaracterisation of his role in the offending. Second, the Judge erred in finding his addiction and mental health issues did not reduce his culpability. Third, he contends his sentence failed to achieve parity with his co-offender.

Factual background

As a result of a police surveillance operation in late June 2020, it was revealed that Mr Tai and his co-offender, Ms Wairua, were operating a mid-level drug distribution business. They were engaged in a cycle of obtaining large quantities of methamphetamine for distribution to lower‑level dealers across the Bay of Plenty region. The cycle began with the collection of cash from their customers, followed by meetings with wholesale suppliers and multiple instances of drug resupply between May and July 2020. Mr Tai and Ms Wairua also sold cannabis. Police found over 805 grams or $350,000 worth of methamphetamine in their respective possession, and 1.7 kilograms or $15,400 worth of cannabis.
On 1 July 2020, police located Mr Tai and Ms Wairua in a holiday cabin. In their search of the premises, police found .22 ammunition, 12-gauge shotgun rounds, some cash, drug paraphernalia and a modified pistol. A search of their motor vehicle revealed an unlocked gun case containing firearms including a .22 calibre rifle, 12-gauge shotgun and more live ammunition. On a search of Mr Tai’s residential address, the police found a fully functioning pipe bomb and eight rifle rounds.
Twenty-five drug and firearms charges arise from this first set of offending, including conspiracy to supply and procure methamphetamine,[2] further methamphetamine charges for possession to supply,[3] supplying and offering to supply,[4] conspiracy to supply of cannabis,[5] possession of cannabis for supply,[6] together with two charges of unlawful possession of firearms and an explosive.[7]
[2]Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(b)–(c) and (2A)(a); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
[3]Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(a); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
[4]Sections 6(1)(c) and (2)(a); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
[5]Sections 6(1)(e) and 6(2A)(c); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
[6]Sections 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(c); maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.
[7]Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b); maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment.
The second set of charges relates to an unprovoked…

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 Tai v The the Queen

Details

AGLC: Tai v The the Queen [2022] NZCA 403
Case: [2022] NZCA 403
Decision Date: 26 August 2022 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal of Tai v The Queen, the appellant, Trstian Jordan Tai, contests the sentence of 10 years and four months' imprisonment imposed on him by Judge MacKenzie in the District Court at Rotorua. The appeal hinges on three grounds: the alleged mischaracterisation of Tai's role in the offending, the Judge's failure to consider his addiction and mental health issues as mitigating factors, and the claim that his sentence failed to achieve parity with his co-offender, Ms Wairua. The court found that Tai's role in the methamphetamine distribution operation was indeed leading, and his addiction and mental health issues, while considered as mitigating factors, did not warrant a reduction in the starting point of his sentence. Furthermore, the court ruled that the disparity in sentencing between Tai and Ms Wairua was not gross or unjustifiable, and thus, did not warrant appellate interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court thoroughly examined Tai's role in the methamphetamine distribution operation, finding that his involvement was leading due to his control over the distribution, pricing, and supply of the drugs in the Bay of Plenty region. The court also noted that Tai's addiction and mental health issues, although relevant mitigating factors, did not reduce his culpability for the offending. The court found no error in the Judge's approach in considering these factors as part of the stage-two discount, rather than as a mitigating factor to the starting point. Finally, the court determined that the disparity in sentencing between Tai and Ms Wairua was not gross or unjustifiable, as their roles in the offending were assessed differently, and Tai's sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal is dismissed, and the original sentence of 10 years and four months' imprisonment stands. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and upheld the Judge's sentencing decision.

Orders