[1] Ms Samantha Tapiki was convicted on one charge of conspiring to supply a Class C drug, being cannabis,1 and one charge of bringing an unauthorised item into a prison, being cannabis.2 She was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment by Judge Greig in the District Court at Hāwera on 19 August 2024.3 The Judge declined to grant leave to apply for home detention. Ms Tapiki appeals against that sentence, and contends that a sentence of six months’ imprisonment would have been appropriate, and leave to apply for home detention should have been granted.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2A)(c) — maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Corrections Act 2004, s 141(1)(a) — maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment, $2,000 fine.
3      Police v Tapiki [2024] NZDC 19873 [sentencing notes].

TAPIKI v POLICE [2024] NZHC 3257 [5 November 2024]

Summary of the offending

[2] Ms Tapiki and her co-offender, Mr O’Connell, were in a relationship at the time of the offending.4 Mr O’Connell was detained in Whanganui Prison when the offending occurred.

[3] On 7 March 2023, Ms Tapiki concealed cannabis plant material on her person and entered Whanganui Prison. There, she handed the cannabis plant over to Mr O’Connell.

[4] Between 1 March and 30 March 2023, Ms Tapiki had a number of conversations with Mr O’Connell over the phone about where to hide cannabis on persons and inside items in order to transport them into prison. They also talked about selling the cannabis in prison and how to avoid being detected. In addition, Ms Tapiki and Mr O’Connell discussed cooking cannabis oil and where to buy ingredients.

Sentencing decision

[5] Judge Greig adopted a starting point of “somewhere between 10 and 12 months’ imprisonment” for the offending.5 He then applied a discount in recognition of Ms Tapiki’s guilty plea, which brought the overall sentence to nine months’ imprisonment.6 However, the Judge noted that the discount was “frankly generous”, as Ms Tapiki had initially pleaded not guilty, despite the fact that her phone calls with Mr O’Connell were recorded, and had only entered her guilty plea on the eve of the trial.7

[6] The Judge concluded that he would not give leave for Ms Tapiki to apply for home detention, as it was unlikely she would comply with the conditions based on her past performance. As part of the sentence the Judge also imposed six months’ post-release conditions and special release conditions.

4 This summary of the offending is drawn from the Judge’s sentencing notes at [2]–[3].
5 At [14].
6 At [15].
7 At [14].

Grounds of appeal

[7]Ms Tapiki’s appeal against sentence is brought on three main grounds:

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 Tapiki v Police

Details

AGLC: Tapiki v Police [2024] NZHC 3257
Case: [2024] NZHC 3257
Decision Date: 5 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tapiki v Police [2024] NZHC 3257 concerns an appeal by Samantha Maree Tapiki against her nine-month imprisonment sentence, imposed by Judge Greig in the District Court. Ms Tapiki was convicted of conspiring to supply cannabis and bringing an unauthorised item into a prison. The appeal focused on whether the sentence was manifestly unjust and if leave to apply for home detention should have been granted. The High Court found no error in the sentence and dismissed the appeal.

Ms Tapiki's appeal centred on three main grounds: the sentence was manifestly unjust given her co-offender received a six-month sentence for the same charge, the Judge erred in declining to grant leave to apply for home detention considering her past performance, and the Judge failed to consider the overall sentencing principles. The Crown opposed the appeal, arguing that the starting point was within the appropriate range and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The Court reviewed the starting point, discount for guilty plea, and the decision on home detention. It found the starting point of 10-12 months' imprisonment was appropriate, considering the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence in drug smuggling cases. The Court noted Ms Tapiki's culpability was high as she intended to sell the cannabis in prison. The generous discount for her guilty plea, entered on the eve of trial, was justified given the strength of the prosecution case.

Regarding the decision on home detention, the Court found the Judge did not err in declining leave, considering Ms Tapiki's past breaches and lack of insight into the severity of her offending. The Court acknowledged Ms Tapiki's employment and children but emphasised her history of non-compliance with home detention. The Judge's decision was considered a difficult exercise of judgment, balancing the principles of sentencing.

The Court concluded that the Judge did not err in setting the starting point, applying discounts, or declining leave for home detention. The sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders