Westrupp v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 1087


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2024-441-5

[2024] NZHC 1087

BETWEEN

NGAWI HOKIANGA ANTHONY WESTRUPP

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 30 April 2024

Appearances:

A M M Ives for Appellant

M J R Blaschke for Respondent

Judgment:

3 May 2024


JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Leave for appeal to be filed out of time application and sentence appeal)


Introduction

[1]    Mr Ngawi Westrupp was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in the Napier District Court on 2 February 2024 on charges relating to methamphetamine dealing and distribution. He now appeals his sentence on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive. He submits that the starting point was too high, and the Judge should have applied further discounts which would have resulted in a sentence of home detention.

[2]Leave to appeal is required as the appeal was filed out of time.

[3]    Mr Westrupp is 45-years old and has five children. He is a patched member of the Mongrelizm chapter of the Mongrel Mob in Wairoa. His offending related to the

WESTRUPP v R [2024] NZHC 1087 [3 May 2024]

distribution of methamphetamine within the Hawkes  Bay  and  Wairoa  areas  in  late 2021.

The offending

[4]    Following a sentence indication based on an agreed statement of facts dated November 2023, Mr Westrupp entered guilty pleas and was sentenced on the following charges:

(a)Supply of methamphetamine;1

(b)Conspiracy to supply methamphetamine;2

(c)Attempted possession of methamphetamine for supply;3 and

(d)Failure to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search.4

[5]    The charges arose out of an investigation into methamphetamine dealing in the Wairoa and Hawkes Bay areas focusing on the Mongrelizm and Barbarian chapters of the Mongrel Mob. I take the following outline from the agreed statement of facts.

Supply of methamphetamine to Mr Taumata

[6]    On 1 December 2021, Apirana Taumata was recorded saying he had arranged to purchase half a kilogram of methamphetamine and that he was waiting for his associate to return with the product, stating he had paid $100,000. Mr Westrupp’s phone  records  indicate  he  was  in  Auckland  between   30  November  2021  and 4 December 2021. The appellant was able to bypass Covid-19 border checkpoints to enter Auckland for his daughter’s chemotherapy treatment. While in Auckland he sent several text messages confirming he was buying methamphetamine to bring back to the Hawkes Bay and Wairoa.


1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and 2(a) — maximum penalty life imprisonment.

2      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(2A)(a) — maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

3      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(f) and 2(a); and Crimes Act 1961, s 72 — maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

4      Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 178 — maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment. The appellant was convicted and discharged in relation to this offence.

[7]    On 5 December  2021  Mr  Westrupp  left Auckland,  arriving  in  Napier  on 6 December 2021. On his arrival, a phone call between Mr Westrupp and Mr Taumata was…

Continue reading Westrupp v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Westrupp v The King [2024] NZHC 1087
Case
[2024] NZHC 1087
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ngawi Westrupp appeals his three-year imprisonment sentence imposed by the Napier District Court on 2 February 2024 for methamphetamine dealing and distribution, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was filed out of time, and leave to appeal was granted. Westrupp, a Mongrel Mob member, was convicted on four charges related to methamphetamine distribution in Hawkes Bay and Wairoa in late 2021. The District Court adopted a starting point of nine years, with a 20% reduction for a guilty plea and a further 35% discount for personal factors, resulting in a three-year imprisonment sentence. Westrupp argues the starting point was too high, and further discounts should have resulted in home detention.

The court found that the District Court judge did not err in her assessment of Westrupp’s role and the starting point. Westrupp's role was more than that of a courier, as he demonstrated autonomy and operated independently. The court found no error in the District Court’s discounting of 55%, which included 15% for rehabilitation efforts, 10% for drug-related issues, and 10% for his upbringing. The court held that the judge appropriately recognised the seriousness of the offending, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.