The King v Hone Ronaki
[2023] NZHC 3106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE
CRI-2021-070-4221
[2023] NZHC 3106
THE KING v
HONE RONAKI
Hearing: 17 August 2023 Appearances:
A Pollett and C A Bourke for the Crown A M Schulze for Mr Hone Ronaki
Judgment:
8 November 2023
SENTENCING REMARKS OF HARLAND J
Introduction
[1] Mr Ronaki, you appear before the Court today for sentence on 107 charges. By far, the largest of these, 79, were ones that you pleaded guilty to before trial. You also pleaded guilty, as your lawyer outlined today, to two charges during the trial after I amended one particular charge down from aggravated robbery to theft.1 You were found guilty by the jury of 26 charges and acquitted, that is found not guilty, in respect of 14 charges. As I have said, given the number of charges, I am proposing to include them in a schedule to the written version of these sentencing notes, rather than to list them individually. But, I also need to be transparent because this is a public process and so I do need to summarise some matters.
1 Charges 47A and 90A, Crown Charge List (end of trial).
R v HONE RONAKI [2023] NZHC 3106 [8 November 2023]
[2] Almost all of your convictions involve methamphetamine offending, being convictions for possessing methamphetamine for supply,2 supplying methamphetamine,3 and conspiring to supply methamphetamine.4 There is one charge of possessing cannabis for supply5 and one charge of participating in an organised criminal group,6 the purpose of which was to organise finance and be involved in the sale or supply of classes A, B and C drugs. You pleaded guilty to the latter charge, that is the organised criminal group drug charge, before your trial. But you were also convicted of participating in an organised criminal group, the objective of which was to commit serious violent offences associated with drug offending.
[3] You were also found guilty and pleaded guilty to charges of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard,7 as well as charges laid under the Arms Act 1983, including unlawful possession of firearms,8 prohibited firearms,9 a pistol and ammunition.10
[4] As well, you pleaded guilty to two charges of money laundering, one of which was a representative charge.11
[5] All of your offending arose out of your association with the Mongols Motorcycle Club (Mongols) and your role as vice president of the newly established New Zealand chapter of it.
[6] Inevitably, a term of imprisonment will be imposed. The question is how long it should be, what mitigating matters might reduce it and whether I should require you to serve a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) before being considered for parole at the usual one third.
2 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3 Sections 6(1)(c) and 6(2); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
4 Section 6(2A); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
5 Sections 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(c); maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.
6 Crimes Act 1961, s 98A; maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
7 Sections 198(2) and 66; maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
8 Arms Act 1983, s 45(1); maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding
$5,000.
9 Section 50A, maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
10 Section 45(1); maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $5,000.
11 Crimes Act, s 243(2); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
[7] In a nutshell, you say that your addiction to methamphetamine drove your offending and you were involved in the sale of grams and ounces of methamphetamine, but not kilograms as the Crown contends. And I will say more about this shortly.
[8] But first I need to outline some matters of general importance that relate to the offending of the kind you have undertaken before addressing your specific offending and the mitigating matters that relate to you personally.
Operation Silk
[9] Operation Silk concerned an extensive Police investigation into the activities of the newly formed Mongols in New Zealand in 2019 and 2020, who had established a methamphetamine and other class A, B and C drug distribution business throughout New Zealand.
[10] Jim Thacker was the president of the Mongols. He was deported from Australia on 6 September 2018. Before his deportation, he was the president of the Beenleigh Bandidos Motorcycle Club (Bandidos) and by 23 January 2019 he was established as the vice president of the newly established chapter of the Bandidos in the North Island of New Zealand.
[11] You were deported from Australia on 2 October 2018. You were also a patched member of the Bandidos and became the president of the North Island chapter of the Bandidos.
[12] A dispute arose within the Bandidos resulting in Mr Thacker, yourself and other gang members to be de-patched. You then established the Mongols in New Zealand, with Mr Thacker the president and you the vice president.
[13] The Mongols Motorcycle Club is an international gang established in 1969 in the USA. It is a One Percenter Club which effectively refers to the fact that 99 per cent of motorcycle riders are law abiding citizens but one per cent are “outlaw”.
[14] The Mongols became involved in dealing class A, B and C controlled drugs, predominantly it would seem methamphetamine, MDMA or Ecstasy and, on several occasions, the class B controlled drug 25I-NBOMe. You dealt in class A and class C controlled drugs, including your own side hustle. You recruited others into the Mongols, notably your nephews and partner’s children. You also provided what was described as the gang pad, then at 625 No. 2 Road.
Your offending
Methamphetamine offending
[15]I start with the methamphetamine offending.
[16] It is important to acknowledge that many of the methamphetamine charges are conspiracy charges.12 As the maximum penalty for these is considerably less, care must be taken when assessing the starting point of imprisonment for your methamphetamine offending because it must bear those charges in mind. There is also one charge of offering to supply methamphetamine.13
[17] There is an issue about the quantum of methamphetamine in respect of some of your convictions. In written submissions, your lawyers provided schedules setting out the different charges with the different quanta outlined and the value assessed.14 This was very useful to me in considering these matters. I will focus on the charges, and now I am going to outline the ones where quantum is disputed. In my written remarks, my analysis is really to do with those charges, because they are the ones that I need to determine.
[18] In short, they were charges 7, 14, 18 and 19 which relate to the same methamphetamine, charge 21, 35, 37, 46 and 47, and charge 49. So, all of those charges were ones that the jury found you guilty of but in which you had an issue about how much methamphetamine was involved.
12 25 charges admitted.
13 Charge 77.
14Submissions dated 2 August 2023 [2.5] (at trial) and submissions dated 5 June 2023, with schedule including charges pleaded to.
[19] In respect of the disputed quantum of methamphetamine arising from your convictions at trial, for either possessing or supplying methamphetamine, but not taking into account the similar charges to which you pleaded guilty, the quantum of methamphetamine I have assessed being involved is 13 kilograms and five ounces. And, I set out in my written remarks which charges relate to which. I have rounded the five ounces down and analysed it as grams, and it amounts to 141 grams, or 0.14 kilograms. So, what that means is, for the disputed methamphetamine in relation to the trial charges, I adopt a quantum of 13.1 kilograms.15
Methamphetamine offending – convictions at trial
Charge 7 – possession of methamphetamine for supply
[20] Charge 7 concerned methamphetamine you had in your possession between 1 January and 30 June 2019, the particulars of which outline that you had “approximately one kilogram - one big bag”, this being methamphetamine you delivered to the protected witness at his address and which was contained in DeWalt tool box. The methamphetamine was part of a delivery in which you provided firearms and ammunition to the protected witness to store at his house. These charges will be addressed later in my sentencing remarks but you faced them with Mr Thacker and both of you were found guilty by the jury of them.16
[21] The protected witness’s evidence at trial was that he observed “a big bag” and his acceptance that, rather than being two bags at one kilogram each, which is what he had told the Police in his earlier statement, at trial he said he had only seen one.17 The protected witness was cross-examined about this. He said that he was talking from experience when he referred to kilos.
[22] Although Mr Mansfield submitted that the reference to kilos is one from which the protected witness resiled, I do not agree. In my view, he resiled from the two bag position but he did not resile the reference to kilos.
15 These may be renumbered but are accurate in this draft.
16 Charges 3 to 5.
17 Notes of evidence, pg 433, line 21.
[23] The theme from the protected witness was that he was always dealing in kilograms unless he specifically stated to the contrary, such as for example when he referred to two ounces which he took for you to Dunedin during one of his trips. I accept the protected witness’s evidence that this methamphetamine amounted to one bag of approximately one kilogram.
[24]I assess the quantum for Charge 7 to be one kilogram.
Charge 8 – supplying methamphetamine
[25] Charge 8 is related to Charge 7 because the protected witness said that you would return to his address from time to time and take out an amount of methamphetamine from the large bag you had left there, stored in the DeWalt box. For this reason, the charge was a representative charge. For the same reasons as I have explained in relation to Charge 7, I consider the quantum for both charges is one kilogram. It is however the same methamphetamine so, for both, the total quantum is one kilogram.
Charge 14 – supplying methamphetamine (representative)
[26] This charge was a representative charge designed to cover the methamphetamine that was referred to by the protected witness in his evidence but which was not covered by a specific charge. It refers to trips the protected witness took from Auckland to Te Puke to Christchurch and return between 1 January 2019 and 25 March 2020. You, Mr Collins-Haskins, Mr Thacker and Mr Huritu were found guilty of this charge. I considered how to deal with this when I sentenced Mr Collins- Haskins.
[27] Although the protected witness said he did many trips to the South Island – about once a fortnight – he was challenged about the number of trips he did to the South Island as part of the general challenge to his credibility at trial. For Mr Collins- Haskins, I considered the fairest way to resolve this was to adopt what the protected witness said to the Police in his initial interview about the number of trips he did for the Mongols to the South Island. In this interview, he said there were six trips to the South Island, something less than what he said at trial. As three trips were covered by
the other charges, I found that there were three additional trips and supplies covered by charge 14. The protected witness was clear, and I accepted, that all of the methamphetamine delivered down south comprised, on each occasion, at least one kilogram of methamphetamine.
[28] This means, as for Mr Collins-Haskins, I adopt three kilograms to represent the additional methamphetamine covered by this representative charge.
Charges 18 and 19 – supply of a class A drug
[29] This charge was faced by you and Kelly Petrowski. It alleged that between 1 January 2019 and 1 June 2019, you had in your possession for the purposes of supply cocaine or methamphetamine which was packaged in cylinders and then subsequently delivered to a person by the name of “Two Times”. Charge 19 is the corresponding charge of supplying the same methamphetamine.
[30] You, Kelly Petrowski and the protected witness travelled to the Warehouse in Papamoa. Mr Petrowski purchased a cell phone, top up and SIM card, and you set up the Wickr App on the phone for the protected witness. You had asked the protected witness to be a driver for the Mongols and his first job was to go to Picton to drop a parcel off, pick something up and come back. The trip was a test to see whether the protected witness could be trusted. You provided the protected witness with a Holden Commodore to use to drive to Picton.
[31] The drugs were packaged in cylinders and the protected witness said they either contained cocaine or methamphetamine. These cylinders were hidden in what was known as “the stook spot” in the Holden Commodore, situated in the roof, and you showed the protected witness where it was and how to store the packages in it. The jury, by their verdict, must have accepted you knew that what was being transported was a class A drug and that you knew it was to be supplied to others.
[32] Your lawyer referred to evidence provided by Detective Sowter at trial that the price of an ounce of methamphetamine was between “six and $9,000”. Your lawyer submitted that because the protected witness was given $7,000 cash in return for the cylinders, the amount of methamphetamine could not have been more than one ounce
(half an ounce in each cylinder). He also submitted that it is difficult to imagine how half a kilogram of methamphetamine could fit into the cylinders, further supporting the notion that the amount was limited to an ounce.
[33] The Crown submitted the quantum of methamphetamine for this charge was between one and two kilograms but did not provide any further justification for this quantum.
[34] I have already sentenced Mr Petrowski on charge 19. I referred to this charge at paras [27] and [28] and, at the invitation of counsel, I dealt with his offending for this charge as an uplift. I determined that an uplift of one year was appropriate to the starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment I had adopted to reflect his offending in respect of charge 45. I formed the view that his role in this offending was very limited and only concerned the purchase of the new cell phone and the assistance he provided to set up the encrypted messaging platform on it.
[35] I am not persuaded to adopt one to two kilograms as the quantity for these charges. On the other hand, half an ounce of either methamphetamine or cocaine, packed in the cylinders as they were described, does not make much sense either unless, because it was a test run, the protected witness was trusted with a lesser amount. This explanation is plausible.
[36] I remind myself that it is important not to speculate about quantum. However, in the absence of anything more compelling, the best evidence is that, cross-referenced to the evidence of Detective Sowter. For this reason and in fairness to you, I adopt Mr Mansfield’s submission that the quantum for this charge is one ounce.
Charge 21 – supplying methamphetamine
[37] You and Mr Thacker were found guilty of supplying methamphetamine via the protected witness to Mr Ross in Christchurch. This methamphetamine was delivered to Mr Ross near Rolleston Prison. He was found guilty of charge 22, a charge of possessing this methamphetamine for the purposes of supply.18
18 Charge 22.
[38] This methamphetamine was part of the Mongols drug distribution business in which methamphetamine was sourced from the North Island and transported down to the South Island to the Mongols, of which you were a part, to supply to others.
[39] At trial, the protected witness gave evidence that you provided him $600 before he left Te Puke for food, ferry and petrol expenses. However, Mr Mansfield submitted that this payment was for the methamphetamine itself, which he further contended was somewhere between grams to a quarter of an ounce. He submitted the $600 you paid to the protected witness is consistent with Detective Sowter’s evidence as to pricing. I do not agree with this.
[40] The evidence from the protected witness in relation to Charge 22 was that he gave Mr Ross the methamphetamine which was exchanged for a shoebox of money and a white clear liquid in a four litre bottle. No charges arise from whatever was in the bottle because there is no evidence about what it was. I mention it simply as a matter of detail the protected witness referred to which, as I said in sentencing Mr Ross, adds credibility to his account of what happened. He said there was $100,000 in the shoebox, wrapped in $5,000 lots, comprising mostly $50 notes. The bundles were secured by rubber bands which he described were like the rubber bands used for orthodontic braces. He returned the money and bottle back to Mr Thacker and was paid $2,000 for the trip.
[41] The protected witness said he took kilograms down south for the Mongols. I accept this. The pricing tends to suggest one kilogram. I adopt this for the purposes of your sentencing.
Charge 35 – possession of methamphetamine for supply
[42] The jury found both you and Mr Thacker guilty of possessing methamphetamine for supply, which had been obtained by the protected witness from Mr Collins-Haskins in Auckland between 13 November 2019 and 4 December 2019. This was the first trip the protected witness made to Auckland and the first occasion that he met Mr Collins-Haskins. Mr Collins-Haskins was found guilty of supplying methamphetamine to the protected witness.19
19 Charge 34.
[43] The protected witness said that Mr Collins-Haskins supplied him with two kilograms of methamphetamine for Mr Thacker and you, I infer for the benefit of the Mongols. The protected witness said he was directed by Mr Thacker to go to Auckland to contact Mr Collins-Haskins and organise a place to meet. They arranged by Ciphr phone to meet at the McDonalds and Subway carpark near Auckland airport. The protected witness described Mr Collins-Haskins driving a Toyota RAV 4 motor vehicle (MMR875), which he had hired. The evidence about the period over which this vehicle was hired helped to establish the time when this and the second trip to Auckland occurred.
[44] The protected witness referred to Mr Collins-Haskins’ strong Australian accent. He said he was given two kilos of methamphetamine, packaged in shiny yellow and green foil teabags which were vacuum sealed. These each contained 500 grams. The exchange was a quick one with both going their separate ways thereafter. The protected witness said he then put the methamphetamine behind the passenger seat of his vehicle, drove home to Te Puke and held onto it until Mr Thacker directed him to deliver it to Mr Ross in Christchurch.
[45] Mr Mansfield referred to expert evidence called by the Crown and submitted that both the forensic accounting evidence and drug expertise did not support the assertion that the dealing was in quantities of kilograms. I do not agree with this for this charge.
[46] I accept the protected witness’s evidence, which was clear, detailed and credible, that the methamphetamine Mr Collins-Haskins supplied to him on this occasion was as he described it and that it amounted to two kilograms. This was the quantum I adopted for Mr Collins-Haskins as well.
Charge 37 – possession of methamphetamine for supply
[47] You and Mr Thacker were also convicted of possessing methamphetamine for supply that had been uplifted by the protected witness from Mr Collins-Haskins during
his second trip to Auckland. Mr Collins-Haskins was convicted of supplying the protected witness with this methamphetamine.20
[48] The second trip occurred again at some time between 13 November and 4 December 2019. On this occasion, the Crown case was that one or more kilograms of methamphetamine was supplied by Mr Collins-Haskins to the protected witness, this time at the Auckland airport plane viewing area.
[49] The protected witness said that he was directed by Mr Thacker, nicknamed “JD”, to meet with Mr Collins-Haskins to pick up the methamphetamine. The vehicle in which Mr Collins-Haskins was situated was the same RAV 4 vehicle. He was driving with someone called Isaac as your passenger who had a “little baby” with him. As with the earlier pick-up, this methamphetamine was packaged in shiny green and yellow teabags that were vacuum sealed, but this time they were placed in a canvas shopping bag.
[50] The protected witness’s evidence was that before he went to Christchurch to deliver the methamphetamine, he went to No 2 Road. There, you gave the protected witness money for travel. The Crown’s case was that you and Mr Thacker were directing where the methamphetamine was going and what was to be done with it. Although you were not in physical possession of the drugs as Mr Collins-Haskins and the protected witness were, by virtue of the jury’s verdict, they must have found you guilty of this charge because you had the ability to exercise control over it.
[51] As to quantum, and in fairness to you, because it was not specifically mentioned by the protected witness but accepting that it would have been at least a kilogram, I adopt one kilogram as the quantum for this charge. This was the approach I adopted for Mr Collins-Haskins.
Charge 46 – possession of methamphetamine for supply
[52] You, Mr Thacker and Mr Huritu were found guilty of possessing methamphetamine for supply between 12 December 2019 and 21 January 2020. This
20 Charge 36.
methamphetamine comprised an additional three kilograms that had been earlier uplifted by the protected witness from “Lam” in Auckland.
[53] The protected witness’s evidence, which the jury must have accepted, was that Mr Thacker had directed him to pick up methamphetamine from “Lam’ in Auckland and you, Mr Huritu and the protected witness subsequently possessed it with Mr Thacker when you participated in cutting the methamphetamine at your house.
[54] At trial it was argued that the protected witness’s explanation of how and where he uplifted the methamphetamine from was not plausible. This was because the protected witness said that “Lam”, who looked like an Asian student, “came around the corner carrying a backpack like a normal looking person”, slipped the bag off his shoulder and chucked it to the protected witness who then put it in his car and “took off”. Further, the description of the methamphetamine, which was dirty and was graphically described by the protected witness as looking as if it was contaminated by grass clippings and pubes, was submitted to be simply unbelievable.
[55] Two kilograms of the methamphetamine was uplifted from “Lam” but the amount of three kilograms was included in the charge because the protected witness said that an extra one kilogram of methamphetamine was added to it. This methamphetamine was in a backpack at the protected witness’s house and he said it had been missed by the Police when they searched his property on 7 January 2020.
[56] At trial, it was submitted that this suggestion was not credible because of the thoroughness of the search. Because the jury convicted you of this charge, the jury did not accept the defence put forward on your behalf. The question remains however as to the quantum of the methamphetamine that comprises charge 46. Mr Collins- Haskins accepts that it was three kilograms, but you do not. I sentenced him on this basis.
[57] I accept the protected witness’s evidence that the quantum of this methamphetamine was three kgs, based on the jury’s verdict.
Charge 47 – supplying methamphetamine
[58] You, Mr Thacker and Mr Collins-Haskins were found guilty of supplying methamphetamine to Mr Ross and to an associate in Dunedin via the protected witness between 1 and 28 January 2020.
[59] You faced this charge with Mr Thacker and Hone Ronaki. It alleged a supply of methamphetamine via the protected witness to Mr Ross. The jury found you and Mr Collins-Haskins, but not Mr Thacker, guilty of this charge.
[60] The protected witness told the jury that he picked up two or three kilograms of methamphetamine from you in Auckland but did not provide any details about it. He then said he took the methamphetamine to Te Puke where it eventually made its way to the South Island. Two kilograms of methamphetamine were dropped off in Christchurch and he then carried on to Dunedin with two clean ounces he had extracted from the methamphetamine, at your direction, which was passed on to someone there at your direction. This was part of your “side hustle”, I infer not done with the knowledge of Mr Thacker or other more senior Mongols.
[61] You pleaded guilty during the trial to supplying two clean ounces via the protected witness to an associate of yours in Dunedin (charge 47A). Your lawyer submitted any quantity for this charge should be consistent with those two ounces.
[62] The jury, by their verdict, accepted the protected witness’s evidence that Mr Collins-Haskins supplied methamphetamine to him on this occasion. There was sufficient detail about what the protected witness did with the methamphetamine when he returned to Te Puke to establish that the amount he uplifted from Mr Collins- Haskins was two kilograms. The protected witness cut and stored the methamphetamine himself, one kilo at a time. He was clear in his evidence that he took two kilograms and two ounces with him to Christchurch.
[63]I assess the quantum for this charge as two kilograms.
Charge 49 – supplying methamphetamine
[64] You were found guilty of supplying methamphetamine between 25 March and 23 June 2020 during the lockdown period. This charge was one you had originally faced with Rauawa Fitzgerald who pleaded guilty to it.21 The methamphetamine concerned came from three kilograms that had been delivered to Mr Huritu prior to lockdown (charge 42) in respect of which Mr Huritu was found guilty by the jury of possessing for the purposes of supply (charge 43). Mr Collins-Haskins and Mr Thacker were found guilty of supplying the same methamphetamine via the protected witness to Mr Huritu. This charge was framed as a representative charge.
[65] You and Rauawa Fitzgerald travelled between Tauranga and Rotorua, dealing methamphetamine between 1 January 2019 and 23 June 2020. The details about the charge were amended at trial.22
[66] The charge was a representative charge because your offending occurred on a number of occasions throughout that period. The evidence about this came from a text exchange between you and Rauawa Fitzgerald on 26 and 27 March 2020 after the COVID-19 lockdown commenced. And the quantity referred to was two ounces for
$4,000 which was the going rate at the time.
[67] In Mr Fitzgerald’s sentencing, the Crown accepted that he should be sentenced on the basis of two ounces rather than on the basis of the kilograms that were referred to during the trial. The evidence at trial was that various members of the Mongols, I infer including you, obtained ounces from time to time from the three kilograms that was stored at Mr Huritu’s place (charges 42 and 43). It is not entirely clear on the evidence how much you, as opposed to others, would have taken from this stock.
[68] Although the Crown accepted that, for Mr Fitzgerald, he should be sentenced on the basis of two ounces, it is unclear what its position now is in relation to you. In fairness to you, I adopt two ounces for this charge as well.
21 Charge 52 (Crown charge notice – his guilty plea one).
22This methamphetamine was referred to in Charges 42 and 43 of the Crown Charge list (end of trial).
Conclusion about quantum
[69] In respect of the disputed quantum of methamphetamine arising from the convictions at trial for either possessing or supplying methamphetamine, because of my findings about this (but not taking into account the similar charges to which you have pleaded guilty), the quantum of methamphetamine involved is 13 kgs (charges 7, 8, 14, 21, 35, 37, 46 and 47) and five ounces (charges 18, 19, 47A and 49). Five ounces rounded down amounts to 141 grams or 0.141 kgs.
Conspiracy to supply methamphetamine – disputed quantum
[70] I then outline your conspiracy to supply methamphetamine charges, those are the ones that you disputed quantum. These were the charges that you were found guilty of - charges 59, 75, 87 and 91. Charge 59 concerned a conspiracy with Charlene Williams, and charges 75, 87 and 91 concern conspiracies with Timiwaata Wiremu. The evidence on these charges came from communications the Police intercepted between you and them. And again, as I have said, I am not going to go through my assessment of the disputed quanta in my oral remarks but they will be provided in my written sentencing notes.23
Charge 59 – conspiracy with Charlene Williams
[71] Your lawyer submitted the amount of methamphetamine involved in this charge is two ounces, having regard again to the evidence at trial from Detective Sowter that the price of an ounce is between $6,000 and $9,000. Your lawyer contends two ounces fits this evidence more accurately than the three ounces the Crown asserts.
[72]In fairness to you, I adopt two ounces as the quantum for this charge.
Charge 75 – conspiracy with Timiwaata Wiremu24
[73] Charge 75 refers to a conversation you had with Timiwaata Wiremu on 29 March 2020 in which you conspired to supply methamphetamine. Mr Wiremu pleaded
23 Paras [71]-[81] only included in the written sentencing remarks as was signalled in [70].
24Mr Mansfield in his submissions dated 5 June 2023 referred to this charge as charge 71. It is charge 75.
guilty to this charge prior to trial.25 The Crown relies on Dress 6747 where there is discussion about getting a “full one” because he “ate it all”.
[74] The guilty pleas by Timiwaata Wiremu cannot be relied on as they are not admissible against you. But, in any event, when I sentenced Mr Wiremu, this conspiracy charge did not especially feature given that a representative charge of conspiring to supply methamphetamine with you, between 31 March and 6 April 2020, dealt with the period after this particular charge. Overall, I sentenced Mr Wiremu on the basis that he had conspired with you to supply a quantum of two to three kilograms of methamphetamine.
[75] In relation to this specific charge however, I agree with your lawyer that the appropriate quantum “a full one” must be reference to an ounce.
Charge 87 – conspiracy with Timiwaata Wiremu (as above)
[76] This charge concerns another conspiracy to supply methamphetamine with Timiwaata Wiremu at a time on 15 April 2020. It relies on an intercepted communication (Dress 8058) where you seek to obtain methamphetamine from Mr Wiremu. There is no mention of a specific amount, rather this call indicates a conspiracy to obtain methamphetamine but no quantum is mentioned. No quantum can therefore be allocated.
Charge 91 – conspiracy with Timiwaata Wiremu
[77] This is another charge of conspiring to supply methamphetamine with Timiwaata Wiremu, this time on 21 April 2020 referred to in various intercepted communications on that day. This is another occasion where you are sourcing drugs off Mr Wiremu. The question is whether the references in the intercepted communication intended to refer to kilograms or ounces.
[78] There is discussion about obtaining some “socks”. There is also reference to harakeke.
25 Charge 154, Crown charge notice.
[79] The Crown expert referred to words used as code for grams, ounces or kilograms. Mr Mansfield submitted that “socks” is more likely to be code for grams because it is similar to “g shocks” and, further, he indicated the context of the discussion means you are talking about grams. In relation to harakeke, there is discussion about half harakeke’s.
[80] The Crown’s expert referred to common terms for ounces, denoting something circular, for example “wheel” or “circle”. There is no evidence to assist with the meaning of harakeke.
[81] Mr Mansfield’s approach is more plausible. I consider the reference to socks is to grams. How many grams is not clear, but more than one is fair. I adopt two grams.
Conclusion about quantum
[82] But what I conclude, having looked at those intercepted communications is that the quantum for them was three ounces or .085 kilograms for these charges.
Methamphetamine charges – guilty pleas
[83] So then I have needed to deal with the methamphetamine charges that you pleaded guilty to but which you disputed quantum on. And, all of your charges that you pleaded guilty to in relation to methamphetamine were accepted apart from charges 140, 153 and 163.26
Charge 140 – possession of methamphetamine for supply
[84] The Crown relies upon an intercepted communication between you and Mr Ramsden (Dress 6283). The discussion is coded. The Crown asserted that the coded discussion is not consistent with grams and must represent 42 ounces (1.176 kgs). Mr Mansfield submitted that the intercepted communications could equally support a discussion about grams, especially when considered in light of the expert financial evidence and that of Detective Sowter. Further, Mr Mansfield submitted that it is
26 Paras [84]-[90] only included in the written sentencing remarks.
difficult to reconcile the asserted quantity of 42 ounces when having regard to your guilty plea to charge 178 of possessing two grams of methamphetamine from Mr Ramsden.
[85] In the intercepted communications referred to by counsel, you and Mr Ramsden talk about needing “water” and “kegs of it’. The Crown asserted, and I agree, this is a reference to acetone required for Mr Ramsden to clean/cut the methamphetamine for you. As well, in a text replying to you asking Mr Ramsden what he got, Mr Ramsden said, “started at 39 mins 75 sec to 42 mins flat”. The Crown submitted this is reference to 39 ounces and 75 grams of methamphetamine that he has cleaned and cut to “get” 42 ounces.
[86]I adopt two ounces.
Charge 153
[87] This is a charge of supplying methamphetamine on 28 March 2020 (date of intercepted comms). A coded discussion between you and Mr Fitzgerald again is part of the intercepted communications (Dress 6674, 6675, 6681 and 6682). In the intercepted phone call, Rauawa Fitzgerald asked you, “can u send 1 to please bruv”. The Crown asserted “send 1” refers to one ounce, whereas your counsel submitted I am in no better position to find it was an ounce than to find it was one gram.
Charge 163 – conspiring to supply methamphetamine
[88] This is a charge of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine. The Crown contends the quantum for this charge of half a kilogram by reference to an intercepted communication (Dress 6965). This communication was between you and Mr Wiremu, in English and Te Reo Māori. There is reference to “36” and “66”. The Crown submits that this is code for 36 and 66 thousand respectively. Mr Mansfield submitted it could equally be a discussion about 3,600 to 6,600.
[89] With reference to Detective Sowter’s evidence about value, Mr Mansfield submitted that a discussion of about 3,600 or 6,600 would be consistent with half an
ounce and an ounce. As well, he said ounces would better represent the quantum you have accepted in the other various charges to which you pleaded guilty prior to trial.
[90]I adopt one ounce as the quantum.
Conclusion about quantum
[91] And, in relation to these charges, I adopt three ounces plus one gram (or .085 kg).
Overall quantum – methamphetamine charges
[92] Overall, in relation to the methamphetamine charges, I have set the quantum to be around 13.9 kilograms for the methamphetamine for supply/possession for supply/supply charges and around 1.7 kilograms for the conspiracy to supply charges. But there is also the offering to supply methamphetamine where you have accepted that the quantum was one kilogram. As this is an offer only however, it cannot be assumed that an additional supply followed.
Other drug related offending
[93] So, in relation to your other drug related offending, to which you pleaded guilty before trial, this all related to cannabis offending and it involved conspiracies to sell cannabis two ounces, supplying cannabis four ounces and 500 grams, possession of cannabis for sale four ounces, one kilogram and 427.8 grams.27
[94]The other drug offences related to cannabis and involved the following:
(a) Conspiracy to sell cannabis:
(i)2 ounces (charge 64)
(b) Supplying cannabis:
(i)“watercress” (charge 76)
(ii)4 ounces of cannabis (charge 106)
(iii)500 grams (charge 157)
27 Para [94] is only included in the written sentencing remarks.
(c) Possession of cannabis for sale:
(i)4 ounces (charge 105)
(ii)Talking about where the cannabis is in the house (charge 119)
(iii)1 kilogram (charge 126)
(iv)Dope on the bench (charge 182)
(v)427.8 grams (charge 231)
[95]So, the total cannabis involved was approximately 78 ounces or 2.2 kilograms.
[96] You also pleaded guilty to possessing a methamphetamine utensil (charge 111), which was a pipe that was used to smoke methamphetamine.
Firearms offending
[97]I am now going to outline your firearms offending.
[98] I have already referred to the Mongols obtaining firearms and ammunition to protect their drug dealing business. The jury found you guilty of seven charges of unlawfully possessing firearms, two of those were prohibited firearm charges, one charge of unlawfully possessing ammunition, and two charges of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Charges 3, 4 and 5
[99] First, dealing with charges 3, 4 and 5. You faced these charges with Mr Thacker. Both of you were convicted by the jury. These charges related to firearms and ammunition delivered to the protected witness’s home after he had made the first trip to “Two Times”, which was the subject of charges 18 and 19, and it was described as the tester trip.
[100] The protected witness said that you and Harley Tuiara delivered firearms to the protected witness’s address, and he was asked to then store them on behalf of the Mongols. The firearms and ammunition were secreted in a large swimming pool box
and suitcase. This included AK-47s and AR-15s. Ammunition was also delivered for both the AK-47 firearms and AR-15 firearms.
[101] By their verdict, the jury accepted that you delivered the firearms and ammunition to the protected witness and you retained control over them for the Mongols.
Charges 11 and 13
[102] The jury also found you and Mr Thacker guilty of unlawfully possessing firearms and ammunition which the protected witness was directed to uplift from a person described at trial as “Marko”. The firearms included a small 8 mm pistol (drilled out), a 12 gauge shotgun, a silver pistol grip, a long-range hunting rifle, a .22 firearm with a revolving magazine, and a pistol grip pump-action shotgun with a skull design. The ammunition included 8 mm rounds, shotgun shells and a few .22 rounds.
[103] Again, the jury by their verdict accepted the evidence of the protected witness and that you would have known about and been able to exercise control over these firearms and ammunition.
[104] The timing of these two groups of charges is consistent with the Mongols obtaining a cache of weapons early on to protect their patch.
Charges 54, 55, 56, 58 and 58
[105] I now turn to outline the very serious incident that occurred on 28 January 2020.
[106] On 27 January 2020, there was an arson attack at Mr Thacker’s barber shop business in Greerton. The business premises were completely destroyed. The Mongols believed that the Mongrel Mob was responsible for the arson attack.
[107] On 28 January 2020, there was a shooting at 26 Haukore Street, Mangatapu, by members of the Mongols. Ninety-six rounds were fired into a house, including into
a lounge area where children were watching TV, and at cars at the address. The address was occupied by the daughter of a senior Mongrel Mob member
[108] Then there was a retaliatory attack by the Mongrel Mob at your address at 625 No 2 Road, Te Puke. Guns were discharged in an exchange between Mongrel Mob members and those at 625 No 2 Road, which included you. The shootout occurred during the day. Before the Mongrel Mob arrived, intercepted communications reveal that you were frantically trying to find firearms that had been hidden in the kiwifruit orchard surrounding your house. You were heard asking Fred Whare where he had hidden the guns.
[109]A member of the public rang the Police.
[110] The Police attended but no firearms were located. However, a number of shell casings were located during the scene examination which showed that the casings belonged to four firearms, a Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a DPMS Panther rifle A-15, a Ranger brand AK-47 and Wyndham Weaponry WW-15.
[111] Later on 28 January 2020, having been notified by another member of the public, the Police went to the Kaituna River and located a bag containing firearms that had been hidden there in the bushes. The firearms concerned were linked to the firearms used during the shooting incidents at Haukore Street and 625 No 2 Road.
[112] The jury, by their verdicts, accepted that you were involved in the incidents at Haukore Street and 625 No. 2 Road. I consider, given your involvement with the firearms, that you were one of the shooters in both incidents. And, can I say to you, that not only was there a risk to the lives of the people at Haukore Street but there was a risk to your life and your family’s life, and anyone else that later would be present at your address.
Charge 116
[113] I now turn to charge 116. Both you and Mr Thacker were also found guilty of being unlawfully in possession of prohibited firearms found at 3 Hastings Street, Te Puke, which was Fred Whare’s address. The firearms were a BAR-15.223 Remington
semi-automatic rifle and a Norinco Brand NHM-90 Sporter 9.62 39 mm semi- automatic firearm.
[114] The charge was based on an intercepted communication where, in a text to Fred Whare, you asked “Bro the cap wants to kno if you can take those guns”, to which Fred Whare responded “yeah bro”.
[115] The jury, by their verdict, accepted that you were unlawfully in possession of these firearms because you had the ability to exercise control over them.
Arms Act – guilty pleas
Charges 71, 78, 80, 81, 82, 232 and 233
[116] As well as these charges, there were other charges that you entered guilty pleas to that concerned weapons. These were charges 71, 78, 80, 81, 82, 232 and 233. They all concern the unlawful possession of firearms, including prohibited firearms, a pistol and ammunition.
[117] Charge 71 concerns various assorted firearms, as was discussed with Rowan Hawes on 19 January 2020.
[118] Charge 78 concerns the unlawful possession of a .22 firearm, which you faced with your partner. On 22 January 2020, you instructed her to retrieve the .22 firearm for you.
[119] Charges 80 and 81 concern firearms located during a search at your property on 26 January 2020. You were in possession of a prohibited firearm, a Ranger Brand tactical 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun which was found at 625 No. 2 Road in your bedroom. Charge 81 concerns your unlawful possession of a pistol found secreted in the toilet cistern at your address address. These items were found just before the Haukore Street incident and the retaliatory attack by the Mongrel Mob.
[120] Charge 232 concerns ammunition found in your possession on 23 June 2020 for various firearms, and charge 233 concerns the unlawful possession of prohibited firearms which were an AR-15 and three AK-47s.
[121] You were actively involved in amassing firearms for the Mongols. The level of deception involved in secreting them is a matter I take into account in considering the uplift I apply to reflect your firearms and Arms Act offending, which I consider to be very serious.
Participating in an organised criminal group - Charges 1 & 2
[122] I now deal with the charges of participating in an organised criminal group, that is charges 1 and 2. Both these charges effectively describe the Mongols’ activities and objectives in relation to their drug distribution business and the objective of protecting that business, if necessary by the use of serious violence.
Theft
[123] Then there is the charge of theft. Charge 90A concerned your theft of Joseph Pickard’s 2013 Ford Ranger valued over $1,000. This offending occurred between 17 April and 15 May 2020. It was effectively a taxing incident to punish Mr Pickard for using the Mongols’ name when it was considered he ought not to have. The plan was to take his car which would be returned to him if he paid the sum of $13,000 to the Mongols. The car was taken, as was the money, and the car was not returned. You received the car and Mr Thacker retained the money. During the trial, I acknowledge your responsibility by pleading guilty to this charge after it had been amended by me.
Money laundering
[124] I then consider your money laundering offending. You also pleaded guilty to two charges of money laundering before trial. Charge 11 concerned an occasion where your partner deposited $5,000 into your daughter’s bank account. This occurred on 10 June 2019. You, by pleading guilty to the charge, accept that this money was obtained from the proceeds of crime, namely drug dealing.
[125] Charge 66 is a representative charge of money laundering. That means that the money laundering happened on a number of occasions. It concerns various occasions between 18 January and 27 April 2020 when you and your partner engaged in money laundering transactions knowing, when doing so, that the property concerned was the proceeds of criminal offending.
[126] Your counsel referred to the evidence establishing that you gained $98,000 from your offending and, for the purposes of this sentencing, I adopt that amount.
Disqualified driving
[127] Then there is the disqualified driving charge,28 it being your third or subsequent offence. This occurred on 21 February 2020. In the scheme of all the other charges you face, this is minor but, inevitably, as your lawyers noted today, a disqualification must be imposed.
Approach to sentencing
[128] So, I now need to outline the approach I have to take to sentencing to accord with the law. I must consider the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act). While I must impose what is the least restrictive outcome, I must also take into account the gravity of your offending, including your degree of culpability, that is your blameworthiness or responsibility for it, and as well the seriousness of the offences. Any sentence I impose must denounce your conduct, deter both you and others from committing similar offences in the future and to hold you accountable for the harm your offending has caused the community.
[129] Determining the appropriate sentence first requires me to set a starting point which will be based on the seriousness of the offending you have admitted through your convictions and those charges that you have been found guilty of. And, having set the starting point, I then consider your personal circumstances, including the matters that might reduce that starting point. This produces what we call the end sentence which I must, as a matter of law, ensure meets what we call the principles of
28 Charge 110, Amended Crown Charge Notice, 7 April 2022.
totality and parity with other co-offenders. That means, any sentence I impose must have a bearing or be similar to, where appropriate, other co-defendants’ sentences that I have already imposed.
Starting point
[130] Dealing first with the starting point. As we know, a starting point of imprisonment is required. I agree or consider that your conviction for participating in the organised criminal group can be dealt with as part of the starting point for your methamphetamine offending. And, when I refer to that, I am talking about the organised criminal group charge 1, not charge 2.
[131] As we heard today, both lawyers disagree about the level of the starting point required. The Crown submits 25 to 26 years’ imprisonment based on a quantum of
23.3 kgs of methamphetamine. Your lawyer submitted a starting point of between 18 to 19 years based on a quantum of six to 10 kgs.
[132] The starting point is required to be assessed taking into account your culpability for your offending. The quantity of methamphetamine involved is part of this but the role you played in the Mongols’ commercial drug supply business is also an important consideration. The cases that provide guidance about this categorise that in terms of bands29 and the role in terms of categories.30
[133] Quantity is assessed in five bands in Zhang v R,31 with band 5 being the most serious and applying to cases where quantities of over two kilograms are involved and, in that scenario, the Court of Appeal has said that starting points of between 10 years and life imprisonment are justified. Band 5 applies in your case because I determined that the quantity of methamphetamine involved in your offending, including the conspiracies and offering to supply methamphetamine, is 16.58 kilograms.
29 Zhang v R [2019] 3 NZLR 648.
30 Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143.
31 Zhang v R, above n 29.
[134] In terms of role, as it is outlined in Berkland v R,32 both lawyers agree you played a leading role, but your lawyer submitted it was at the lower end of leading. I am not going to read out now why I have considered that the leading category should apply but you will be able to read that in my written sentencing remarks.33
[135]Your role, as outlined in Berkland, was a leading role. This is because you had:
(a)an organising role in the buying and selling of methamphetamine on a commercial scale – the evidence demonstrated that you took a directing or organising role in the buying and selling of methamphetamine on a commercial scale. You also developed his own “side hustle” dealing methamphetamine.34 Your offending involved taking a leading role in arranging for methamphetamine to be sold and transported across the country;35
(b)substantial links to, and influence on, others in the chain – at the time of the offending, and as the Crown understands you remain, the national vice- president of the Mongols;36 and
(c)substantial financial gain – The quantities involved and the number of occasions support that this was happening on a commercial scale with the expectation of substantial financial gain. The Crown submits that the money laundering charges are indicative of the amount of financial gain expected and gained by the Mongols and you personally. There are also references in the intercepted communications to extravagant purchases including “toys” and jet skis.37
[136] As well, the intercepted communications provided an insight into your role in organising the sourcing, cleaning where applicable, and supply of significant amounts of methamphetamine.
32 Berkland v R, above n 30.
33 Paras [135]-[137] only included in the written sentencing remarks as was signalled in [134].
34 Notes of evidence, pg 443, lines 12 to 14.
35 Notes of evidence, pg 405, line 34 to pg 406, line 6.
36 Notes of evidence, pg 120, lines 10 to 14, and pg 443, lines 9 and 10.
37 Intercepted communications Folder 5, tab 100, Dress 3555.
[137] In relation to your role, you accept you were in a leading role, albeit at the lower end of the category. As Mr Mansfield highlighted, you were heavily addicted and I accept this drove your desire and need to deal in methamphetamine to satisfy that habit and your addiction. You lived in rental accommodation and the extent of your methamphetamine habit would have meant you were likely paid, in part, by receiving the drug yourself to feed your habit.
[138] In the end, I have agreed that your role was leading but at the lower end of leading.
[139] Then your lawyer referred to a number of cases to justify a starting point and, again, I am not going to read and go through those but they will be included and my analysis of them is included in my written sentencing remarks.38
[140] In Zhang v R, one of the appellants, Mr Yip, pleaded guilty to seven charges of methamphetamine related offending.39 His lead charge was importing over 60 kilograms. Mr Yip was assessed as having a leading role due to his awareness of the scale of the operation, his oversight and the commercial nature. A starting point of 23 years’ imprisonment was considered appropriate by the Court of Appeal.
[141] In Berkland v R, one of the sentences reviewed by the Supreme Court was for Mr Harding, who had pleaded guilty to 11 charges of manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine.40 The total quantum was 6.5 kilograms. The Supreme Court overturned the 30 year starting point that had been adopted by the High Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal, considering a starting point of 22 years’ imprisonment was appropriate.
[142] The defendant in R v Kim had pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine and MDMA for supply, as well as possessing cocaine.41 Mr Kim was the storeman in the operation, stockpiling and repackaging drugs that were then supplied to other syndicate members, including at least 15 kilograms of methamphetamine which was
38 Paras [140]-[143] only included in the written sentencing remarks as was signalled in [139].
39 Zhang v R, above n 29.
40 Berkland v R, above n 30.
41 R v Kim [2022] NZHC 952.
the lead offending. Edwards J in the High Court found that Mr Kim was in the lower end of the significant category having regard to his operational function, that he was primarily motivated by financial reward, and had some awareness of the scale of the operation. A starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment was adopted. This was upheld on appeal.42
[143] I adopted a starting point of 17 years for Mr Collins-Haskins for his methamphetamine offending. The quantum for him was 15.5 kilograms but I assessed his role to be at the upper end of significant. For you, the quantum is slightly higher but it includes the conspiracies and offering to supply. I take into account that the maximum penalties for these charges is less. Your role is greater than Mr Collins- Haskins.
[144] But bearing in mind all of those matters and standing back, I consider a starting point of 19 years’ imprisonment is justified for your methamphetamine offending. That includes, as I have said, Charge 1, participating in the organised criminal group, the purpose of which was to organise finance and be involved in the sale or supply of class A, B and C controlled drugs.
Uplifts for remaining charges
Uplift – participating in an organised group and firearms
[145] I now need to consider what the uplifts should be. First dealing with the firearms charges. I deal with your participation in the organised criminal group serious violence charge as part of this. Because, without a doubt, it was related to your firearms offending which was, in my view, inextricably linked to the desire of the Mongols to protect their drug dealing business, using violent means if that was necessary.
[146] Your firearms offending is excessive and very serious. The fact it is interlinked with your involvement in the Mongols and their drug dealing business adds to its seriousness. As I have said, some of the charges arise from the two shootings that
42 Kim v R [2023] NZCA 332.
occurred at Haukore Street and 625 No. 2 Road. The risk to life on these occasions was very real. And I consider it very fortunate that no one, including you, was harmed or killed. The number of firearms encompassed by your convictions, more than 20, is also significant. So too is the amount of ammunition.
[147] Counsel for the Crown submitted, on a totality basis, an uplift of four years’ imprisonment was warranted, but your lawyer submitted an uplift of 18 months.
[148] I consider a higher uplift is required than that which your lawyer has suggested, but not as high as what the Crown seeks. Taking into account the level of your participation in the incidents at Haukore Street and 625 No. 2 Road, your involvement in amassing and secreting firearms for the Mongols, and bearing in mind other uplifts I have given for other defendants for their firearms offending, I adopt an uplift of 3 years’ imprisonment. Charge 2 is included in this.
Cannabis offending
[149] Then there is your cannabis offending which involved, as I have said, 2.2 kilograms of cannabis.43
[150] Guidelines for cannabis offending were set out in R v Terewi by the Court of Appeal.44 Although that case concerns the cultivation of cannabis, it has since been confirmed that it also is relevant for categorising other cannabis-related offending, including, as is the case here, possession of cannabis for supply and sale.45 As with Zhang, the categories, the seriousness of the offending is assessed by reference to weight and the role that you have in the sale of cannabis was also important.46
[151] Your cannabis offending reflects dealing for a commercial purpose and with the object of deriving profit. A starting point of two years’ imprisonment as the Crown suggested would be warranted. However, I have to consider totality.
43 Paras [150]-[151] only included in the written sentencing remarks.
44 R v Terewi [1999] 3 NZLR 62.
45Bishop v R [2010] NZCA 66 at [19]; R v Leighs CA360/02, 15 September 2003 at [11]; and R v Keefe CA275/02, 28 November 2002 at [11].
46 R v Terewi, above n 44, adopting the approach taken in Zhang v R, above n 29, at [118].
[152] Both lawyers agree that six months is appropriate on a totality basis. I agree with that and adopt six months.
Money laundering
[153] In relation to your money laundering charges which I have outlined, your lawyer referred to a comparable case which again I have analysed but won’t read out.47
[154] In R v Huang, Mr Huang was sentenced for serious drug offending as well as money laundering.48 He had purchased an Audi for $190,000 using money derived from the proceeds of his drug dealing. The High Court considered a standalone sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment would have been appropriate, however, as an uplift to the 10 year starting point for Mr Huang’s drug offending six months’ was justified. Mr Mansfield submitted because you gained $98,000, less than Mr Huang, an uplift of no more than six months’ imprisonment is justified.
[155] The Crown submitted on a standalone basis a starting point of two to two and a half years’ imprisonment would be warranted, but on a totality basis an uplift of one year is appropriate.
[156] It was submitted on your behalf that no more than six months was required whereas the Crown submitted it should be one year. I adopt an uplift of six months’ imprisonment.
Theft
[157] In relation to the theft, normally this would warrant a separate sentence but, on this occasion, I simply intend to convict and discharge you rather than to apply an uplift.
47 Paras [154]-[155] only included in the written sentencing remarks as was signalled in [153].
48 R v Huang [2022] NZHC 3323.
Driving while disqualified
[158] And, I have already outlined what I am going to do with the driving while disqualified. You will be convicted and discharged, but disqualified for one year and one day as the law requires.
End starting point with uplifts
[159]So, the end starting point with uplifts is 23 years’ imprisonment.
Personal and mitigating matters
[160] Now, I turn to your personal and mitigating matters. To help me understand your background and more about you as a person, not just an offender, I received and considered the Provision of Advice to Courts (PAC) report and a s 27 report. Both were very helpful. You are, I think your lawyer said 47, if not, 46 years of age. You whakapapa to Tapuika in the Bay of Plenty. The s 27 report writer describes you, sadly, as culturally deprived.
[161] You were raised in a whāngai arrangement. You do not know who your biological parents are, but you know they are whānau. This has caused significant trauma for you, and I understand that would be the case. You did not have the benefit of growing up with grandparents as they had all passed away. And can I say when I mention these things Mr Ronaki, I am not intending to do so to shame you. What I am intending to do is to outline the very real difficult background that you have had because of the public nature of this exercise. But, if there are matters that are particularly personal and are painful for you to have published, I am open to those particular matters being suppressed.
[162] But to articulate them now, when you reflect on your upbringing, you describe it as broken. You describe feeling both loved and unloved, and you experienced ill- treatment at the hand of your mother, your father’s subsequent partner.
[163] Although your father was a hard-working man and well respected, he was also angry and violent. You described him as a hard but good man, who did not drink alcohol or smoke.
[164] However, very sadly, economic and material deprivation are also features of your upbringing, and they were no fault of yours. Very early on, and after only one year of high school, you left without any formal qualifications and, unsurprisingly given your past, started on a trajectory of juvenile delinquency.
[165] You were sent to Australia to live with your father’s sister, who was also the maternal grandmother of your co-defendant Mr Thacker. You spent three months there and then returned home.
[166] In around 1993, you first entered the prison system, again unsurprisingly given what you had been through, and thereafter, again sadly, you were in and out of prison serving short terms of imprisonment.
[167] You began to consume alcohol and cannabis in your early adolescence, but you were an intermittent user first. You tried methamphetamine for the very first time at the young age of 23, and this was the start of an extremely negative cycle for you. You describe a lifestyle revolving around your methamphetamine use and I consider that to be a very important acknowledgement by you and a very responsible one.
[168] In 2004, you moved to Australia but your drug consumption continued. Eventually, in Australia, you were imprisoned and then deported back to New Zealand in 2018. I have no doubt that being deported back to New Zealand was extremely difficult for you and for your whānau.
[169] When you arrived in New Zealand in 2018, you started using methamphetamine again. Your addiction since has been described as severe. As I have said, the fact that you recognise this is a significant step in the right direction. It is certainly very clear to me from the evidence at trial that you were in an extremely dark place because of how much methamphetamine you were using.
[170] Members of your family affiliate to gangs. You told the report writer you grew up exposed to your uncles’ lifestyle and, as an impressionable young man, you aspired to be like them. Again, this is not surprising. One uncle is affiliated to the Filthy Few Motorcycle Club, which you joined very briefly, but it was not until when you were
first imprisoned in around 1993 that you ended up joining the Mongrel Mob. When you were released from prison and you moved to Australia, you joined the Bandidos there in 2012 because other whānau were involved in that. When you were imprisoned in Australia, you remained a member of the Bandidos and, when you were deported, you were a founding member of the Bandidos in New Zealand. You then became a founding member of the Mongols in New Zealand.
[171] As I have mentioned, the transition back to New Zealand was not easy because you had left 14 years before and you did not adapt well to this transition.
[172] I take into account what your partner told the report writer and I found her observations to be very helpful. She mentioned, and again unsurprisingly, that your addiction has impacted negatively on your relationship with her, even though your relationship with her has endured. She talks about when you went to Australia, that you worked hard, earnt good money and that was a very happy time in your life. But, unfortunately, due to your methamphetamine addiction, things became problematic.
[173] Your deportation has been a significant strain on your family. Your partner clearly preferred the life in Australia and did not want to move back to New Zealand as she was concerned about what had happened here and she was concerned that it would happen again. Her insight into that was absolutely correct. She correctly identifies that your methamphetamine addiction is at the heart of your offending.
[174] The destruction that this addiction has caused, not only to you but your family, is very real. Although your gang affiliation is a contributing factor to your offending, I am sure that your partner is right that at the heart of it all is your methamphetamine addiction. However, associating with others whose business is to deal drugs, for someone like you, can end nowhere but a very dark place.
[175] Despite your difficulties, as your partner stated, you are very much loved by your whānau, not only by your children but also by your nieces and nephews. Your partner said that you can be “an awesome Dad”. Your nephew, Elijah Wanoa, and you may not know this, but he told me at his sentencing that you tried to steer him away
from being involved in the Mongols and when he suffered significant trauma in his personal life, you were there to help him, both practically and emotionally.
[176] One of the tragedies of this case is how many of your co-defendants are related to you. I cannot escape the conclusion that, through you, many of the younger members of your whānau were enlisted to become part of the Mongols’ unlawful and damaging drug distribution business.
[177] But it appears to me now, having read the s 27 report, that you accept the verdicts brought back by the jury and you have impressed that report writer as being someone who has had time during your three years on remand in custody to reflect on your life. You are motivated to undertake any rehabilitative programmes offered to you and, in that regard, I was pleased to receive this morning your certificate of achievement showing that you have completed an AOD alcohol and drug addiction relapse prevention workbook programme.
[178] Despite the positive report from the s 27 report writer, the PAC report writer is less optimistic. There are reasons for this which appear to be due to insufficient time being available for you to be interviewed and the fact that her report was based on limited information. Importantly however, you stated to her that your actions were those of a drug user, doing what you needed to do to maintain your habit. You denied being a “big-time drug dealer”. This means that, for me, because of the lack of information available to the PAC report writer, the s 27 report provides more useful background to me in sentencing you.
[179] I agree with your counsel that your background and addiction have been instrumental in your offending, and I agree with your lawyer that 20 per cent is the appropriate deduction to recognise both; with 10 per cent for your personal and cultural circumstances and 10 per cent related to the impacts of addiction.
[180] As well, as you heard me say, it is appropriate for there to be a deduction to recognise your guilty pleas to a significant number of charges prior to trial. The Crown submitted a five per cent deduction was appropriate, whereas your lawyer submitted
that no less than 10 per cent was appropriate. I agree with your lawyer and I adopt a
10 per cent discount for your guilty pleas.
[181] Looking at these matters in the round, that means a 30 per cent discount is warranted for personal and mitigating matters.
End sentence
[182] The end sentence rounded down is therefore a term of 16 years’ imprisonment. I have considered this sentence in the light of totality of your offending and I am not persuaded it should be adjusted any further.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[183]I now address whether a minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed.
[184] The Crown seeks the maximum possible MPI of 66 per cent.49 I will refer to the relevant cases in my written sentencing remarks and do not traverse them now.50
[185] In Zhang, the Court observed that MPIs should not be imposed mechanistically or as a matter of routine.51 Lengthy MPIs are to be reserved for cases featuring significant commercial drug dealing,52 in other words, for the most deserving cases.53
[186] Under s 86(2) of the Sentencing Act, I may impose an MPI if I am satisfied the minimum period of one-third is insufficient for the purposes of accountability, denunciation, deterrence and community protection. I recognise that the serious nature of your offending calls for, in particular, deterrence and denunciation.
[187] Your rehabilitative potential is of relevance here because it goes some way towards protecting the community from any further offending by you. I am satisfied that a minimum period of imprisonment is possibly not required to meet this purpose but it remains to be seen if your current positive path can be maintained.
49 Sentencing Act 2002, s 86(4).
50 Paras [185]-[186] only included in the written sentencing remarks as was signalled in [184].
51 Zhang v R, above n 29, at [169] and [174].
52 At [171].
53 Sentencing Act, s 8(c).
[188] However, I only have to find that the standard one-third period is insufficient to meet one of the purposes set out in s 86(2) in order to impose a minimum period of imprisonment. Although the purpose of community protection is likely satisfied, in my view, the purposes of deterrence and denunciation are not. Methamphetamine causes irreparable harm to families and communities, and often the impact of addiction can be felt inter-generationally. You will know this better than I.
[189] You were the vice president of the Mongols. You helped to oversee the drug business the Mongols ran and profited from. Your offending involved kilograms of methamphetamine, and although you were motivated by your own addiction, I nonetheless consider that a minimum period of imprisonment is warranted. I decline to give this to the extent that the Crown seeks. That is the maximum, and it should be reserved for the worst of cases. But, in my view, a period of 40 per cent is appropriate. This means you must serve a minimum period of six years five months’ imprisonment before you are eligible for parole.
Result
[190]Could you please stand Mr Ronaki.
[191] I sentence you to a term of 16 years’ imprisonment and impose an MPI of 40 per cent in respect of this sentence.
[192] As outlined, in respect of the charges to which this sentence is imposed, that will be included in the schedule attached to my written sentencing remarks.
[193]Thank you. If you could stand down please.
Harland J
Hone Ronaki
Schedule of Charges and Sentences
Methamphetamine offending
| Charge No.54 | Charge | Quantum / Description | Sentence55 | |
| CCL | CCN | |||
| 1 | Participated in an organised criminal group (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Distributing and supplying class A, B and C controlled drugs | 5 years | |
| 4 | Possession of methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 9.5 grams found in glass jar buried in the garden at 625 No. 2 Road | 1 year | |
| 7 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty at trial) | 1 kilogram | 16 years | |
| 8 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty at trial) | 1 kilogram | 16 years | |
| 14 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty at trial) | Trips from Auckland – Te Puke – Christchurch return 3 kilograms | 16 years | |
| 21 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty at trial) | Supplied to Jason Ross in Christchurch (Rolleston prison location) - 1 kilogram | 16 years | |
| 35 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty at trial) | From Brodie Collins-Haskins via protected witness 2 kilograms | 16 years | |
| 37 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty at trial) | From Brodie Collins-Haskins via Jacob Mason in the Auckland airport plane viewing area - 1 kilogram | 16 years | |
| 46 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty at trial) | From “Lam” via protected witness - 3 kilograms | 16 years | |
| 47 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty at trial) | Supplied to Jason Ross and associate in Dunedin via protected witness 2 kilograms | 16 years | |
| 47A | Supplying methamphetamine (guilty plea during trial) | 2 ounces supplied to an associate in Dunedin | 2 years | |
| 49 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty at trial) | Dealing from 3 kg delivered to Leon Huritu (Wolf) prior to lockdown | 4 years | |
| 55 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Attempting to source half an ounce for $3,000 | 4 years | |
54 CCL = Crown Charge List. CCN = Crown Charge Notice (used for guilty pleas prior to trial).
55 Hone Ronaki’s end sentence is 16 years’ imprisonment.
| 56 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Text message about 2 ounces for $7,000 | 4 years |
| 57 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | A half ounce for a firearm. | 4 years |
| 59 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty at trial) | Agreement to get stock from Auckland - 2 ounces | 8 years |
| 63 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Couple of ounces | 8 years |
| 65 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Discussion between Hone Ronaki and Rauawa Fitzgerald about their dwindling supply of methamphetamine and how they may have to go halves | 1 year |
| 67 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Hone Ronaki and Morehu Tarau discussing to supply methamphetamine | 1 year |
| 70 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Timiwaata Wiremu advising he is “good to go” | 6 years |
| 72 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Discussion about supplying a female with one gram and other unknown person | 8 years |
| 74 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Discussion about supply a 7 and a quarter of an ounce | 8 years |
| 75 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty at trial) | Working together to supply for the Mongols (led by Jim Thacker) - 1 ounce | 1 year |
| 77 | Did offer to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Offered to supply 1 kilogram to Harry Herbert | 10 years |
| 87 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty at trial) | Hone Ronaki sourcing drugs off Timiwaata Wiremu No quantum allocated | 6 years |
| 89 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Discussion with Charlene Williams regarding the methamphetamine she lost | 2 years |
| 91 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty at trial) | Hone Ronaki sourcing drugs off Timiwaata Wiremu 2 grams | 6 years |
| 95 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | From Matthew Ramsden once cleaned | 8 years |
| 97 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | With Timiwaata Wiremu | 6 years |
| 98 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 1 gram | 4 years |
| 99 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Rauawa Fitzgerald asking Hone Ronaki to supply his aunt who usually gets two ounces a week | 4 years |
| 101 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 7 grams | 1 year |
| 102 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Working together with Frederick Whare to do a deal (2 grams). | 4 years |
| 104 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 2 ounces to clean and on supply | 8 years |
| 107 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Phone calls in code | 4 years |
| 108 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Matthew Ramsden supplies associate of Hone Ronaki’s with 2 grams | 1 year |
| 111 | Possession of a methamphetamine utensil (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Pipe | 6 months |
| 112 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 26 grams and $4,410 cash | 2 years: |
| 113 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | At 12:47 am working with Frederick Whare to deal one gram and at 5:53 pm to deal one gram – total 2 grams | 4 years |
| 116 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Bag of methamphetamine to Wairaka Whare | 8 years |
| 118 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Working with Frederick Whare to deal “a fifty” | 4 years |
| 127 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Supplying methamphetamine to Rauawa Fitzgerald | 4 years |
| 131 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | On supply to customers – Rauawa Fitzgerald selling and passing money onto Hone Ronaki | 6 years |
| 132 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Supplying 7 grams to Rauawa Fitzgerald | 6 years |
| 135 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Supplying to Rauawa Fitzgerald | 6 years |
| 140 | Possession of methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 2 ounces received from Matthew Ramsden | 2 years |
| 141 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Supplied four ounces to Rauawa Fitzgerald | 6 years |
| 143 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Working together with Timiwaata Wiremu to supply methamphetamine | 6 years |
| 145 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Working together with Frederick Whare to supply 2.5 ounces of methamphetamine | 4 years |
| 147 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | With Frederick Whare | 8 years |
| 149 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 2 ounces to Rauawa Fitzgerald | 6 years |
| 151 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | The methamphetamine Matthew Ramsden is “washing” | 8 years |
| 152 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Working together with Timiwaata Wiremu to supply | 6 years |
| 153 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 1 gram to Rauawa Fitzgerald | 6 months |
| 155 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Working together with Frederick Whare to deal 3 grams | 4 years |
| 158 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Supplying to Cydney Phillips | 8 years |
| 160 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Supplying half an ounce to Antionette Te Kanawa | 8 years |
| 163 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 1 ounce | 2 years |
| 168 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial) | Supplying 8 ounces for $32,000 to Yasmin Patten | 8 years |
| 169 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Agreeing to supply 12 ounces for $50,000 to Jesse Hutchins | 4 years |
| 170 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Talk about Hone Ronaki supplying to Charlene Williams and she and others liking it | 2 years |
| 171 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 1 kilogram | 8 years |
| 173 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Hone Ronaki sourcing drugs from Timiwaata Wiremu | 6 years |
| 175 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Coded talk of halves | 1 year |
| 178 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 2 grams from Matthew Ramsden | 8 years |
| 183 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | With Charlene Williams | 2 years |
| 193 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Coded talk | 4 years |
| 198 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Working together with Timiwaata Wiremu, Frederick Whare and Jim Thacker | 5 years |
| 199 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Conversation with Timiwaata Wiremu about business | 6 years |
| 206 | Conspired to supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Working together with Timiwaata Wiremu | 6 years |
| 208 | Did supply methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 8 years | |
| 223 | Possession of methamphetamine for supply (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 28.64 grams of methamphetamine found behind glove box in LCN353 | 2 years |
Cocaine offending
| Charge No. | Charge | Quantum / Description | Sentence | |
| CCL | CCN | |||
| 18 | Possession of Class A controlled drug for supply (guilty at trial) | Cocaine packaged in cylinders - 1 ounce | 3 years | |
| 19 | Did supply a Class A controlled drug (guilty at trial) | Packaged in cylinders to “Two Times” - 1 ounce Cocaine or methamphetamine | 3 years | |
Cannabis offending
| Charge No. | Charge | Quantum / Description | Sentence | |
| CCL | CCN | |||
| 64 | Conspired to sell cannabis (guilty plea before trial) | Hone Ronaki and Frederick Whare working together to set up a 2 ounces cannabis deal | 6 months | |
| 69 | Did supply cannabis or methamphetamine (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Chavei Smith packaged up drugs for Hone Ronaki to sell | 1 year | |
| 76 | Did supply cannabis (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Supplied cannabis and referred to it as “watercress” | 1 year | |
| 105 | Possession of cannabis for sale (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 4 ounces of cannabis | 1 year | |
| 106 | Did supply cannabis (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 4 ounces of cannabis (the “bro” got one and Chavei Smith got three) | 1 year | |
| 119 | Possession of cannabis for sale (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Talking about where the cannabis is in the house | 1 year | |
| 126 | Possession of cannabis for supply (guilty before trial on 11 August 2022) | Setting up a sale referring to 1 kilogram of cannabis | 2 years | |
| 156 | Did sell cannabis (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Selling 500 grams | 2 years | |
| 157 | Conspired to sell cannabis (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | To sell 500 grams cannabis | 2 years | |
| 182 | Possession of cannabis (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | The dope on the bench | Convicted & discharged | |
| 231 | Possession of cannabis for sale (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 427.8 grams of cannabis plant | 2 years | |
Firearm offending
| Charge No. | Charge | Quantum / Description | Sentence | |
| CCL | CCN | |||
| 2 | Participated in an organised criminal group (guilty at trial) | Commission of serious violent offences | 3 years | |
| 3 | Unlawful possession of firearms (guilty at trial) | The firearms in a box and suitcase at 128 No 1 Road, Te Puke (including AK47s and AR15) | 2 years | |
| 4 | Unlawful possession of ammunition (guilty at trial) | 7.62 rounds (for AK47 firearms) | 6 months | |
| 5 | Unlawful possession of ammunition (guilty at trial) | 223 rounds (for AR15 firearms) | 1 year | |
| 11 | Unlawful possession of firearms (guilty at trial) | Collected from Marko in Johnsonville - 8 mm pistol, 12 gauge shotgun, silver pistol grip, long range hunting rifle, .22 revolving mag, pistol grip pump action shot gun with skull design | 2 years | |
| 13 | Unlawful possession of ammunition (guilty at trial) | Collected from Marko in Johnsonville, 8mm rounds, shotgun shells and a few 22 rounds | 6 months | |
| 54 | Discharged a firearm with reckless disregard (guilty at trial) | Shooting at Haukore Street (Mongrel Mob), 96 rounds fired into the lounge of the address | 3 years | |
| 55 | Unlawful possession of firearms (guilty at trial) | Firearms used at Haukore Street - Bushmaster XM15- E2S, DPMS Panther Rifles A-15 x2, Ranger AK47 and Windham weaponry WW15 | 3 years | |
| 56 | Discharge a firearm with reckless disregard (guilty at trial) | At 625 No. 2 Road, Te Puke | 3 years | |
| 57 | Unlawful possession of prohibited firearms (guilty at trial) | Firearms used at No. 2 Road - Bushmaster XM15, DPMS Panther Rifle, A-15, Windham weaponry WW15 and Ranger NHM-90 | 3 years | |
| 71 | Unlawful possession of firearms (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Discussion with Rowan Hawes about the firearms | 6 months | |
| 78 | Unlawful possession of firearm (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Instructing Paul Wanoa to retrieve the .22 | 1 year | |
| 80 | Unlawful possession of prohibited firearm (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Ranger brand tactical 12 gauge semi-auto shotgun at 625 No 2. Road, Te Puke (in the bedroom) | 1 year | |
| 81 | Unlawful possession of a pistol (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | A .9 mm Blow brand pistol at 625 No. 2 Road, Te Puke (in the toilet cistern) | 1 year | |
| 82 | Unlawful possession of prohibited firearms (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Mossberg pump action shotgun at 625 No. 2 Road, Te Puke (buried underground in the lean to) | 1 year |
| 116 | Unlawful possession of prohibited firearms (guilty at trial) | Firearms found at 3 Hastings Street, Te Puke – a BAR-15 .223 Remington semi- automatic rifle | 2 years |
| 232 | Unlawful possession of ammunition (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | 132 x .233 9 x .222 14 x 7.62 mm 10 x .22 26 x 9 mm 1 x .380 1 x 7.65 mm 30 x shotgun rounds 4 x 44/40 rounds 1 x .303 round | 9 months |
| 233 | Unlawful possession of prohibited firearms (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | AR15 and 3 x AK47 | 2 years |
Theft and money laundering offending
| Charge No. | Charge | Quantum / Description | Sentence | |
| CCL | CCN | |||
| 11 | Money laundering (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Paula Wanoa depositing $5,000 into Iritana Wanoa’s bank account | 6 months | |
| 66 | Money laundering (guilty plea before trial on 11 August 2022) | Representative charge. Hone Ronaki and Paula Wanoa engaged in money laundering transactions knowing the property is the proceeds of a criminal offence | 18 months | |
| 90A | Theft (guilty plea during trial) | 2013 Ford Ranger GTN182 valued over $1,000 being the property of Joseph Pickard | 18 months | |
Driving offending
| Charge No. | Charge | Quantum / Description | Sentence | |
| CCL | CCN | |||
| 110 | Driving while disqualified 3rd or | Drove on Tynan Street, Te | Convicted and | |
| subsequent | Puke, while suspended | discharge. | ||
| (guilty plea before trial on 11 | Disqualified from | |||
| August 2022) | holding or | |||
| obtaining a | ||||
| driver’s licence | ||||
| for one year & 1 | ||||
| day commencing | ||||
| 17 August 2023 | ||||
4
0