RANGIRANGI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2554

RANGIRANGI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2554 [13 September 2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDROTORUA REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHECRI-2023-463-49[2023] NZHC 2554BETWEEN CHRIS RANGIRANGIAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 13 September 2023Appearances: A Hill for AppellantT Afoa for RespondentJudgment: 13 September 2023JUDGMENT OF LANG J[on appeal against sentence]This judgment was delivered by Justice LangOn 13 September 2023 at 11.00 amRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:Solicitors/counsel:Gordon Pilditch, Office of the Crown Solicitor, RotoruaA Hill, Rotorua[1] Mr Rangirangi pleaded guilty in the District Court to charges of cultivatingcannabis plants and being in possession of cannabis plants and cannabis oil for thepurpose of supply. On 18 May 2023, Judge E P Paul sentenced Mr Rangirangi to twoyears two months imprisonment.1[2] Mr Rangirangi appeals against sentence. He contends the Judge failed to givehim adequate discount for his guilty pleas and that he failed to provide any discountto reflect his remorse and rehabilitative prospects. He says these mitigating factorsought to have reduced the sentence to one of two years imprisonment or less, meaningthat a sentence of home detention would have been both available and appropriate.The charges[3] The charges were laid after the police searched the residential address occupiedby Mr Rangirangi and his son on the morning of 12 October 2022.[4] The police located a large blue plastic drum in the garage that had been filledwith cannabis plant material. The cannabis was found to weigh 7.97 kilograms. In abedroom at the address the police found a white bucket containing 1.035 kilograms ofcannabis head material stored in plastic bread bags. In a bucket in the lounge thepolice found numerous plastic ziplock bags together with a set of scales. In the sameroom the police found 98 grams of cannabis plant material in two separate plastic bags.[5] In a bedroom at the address the police also found a small plastic container thatcontained three cannabis oil capsules, as well as another plastic container that held 60cannabis oil capsules. In the same bedroom the police found a firearms safe thatcontained a notebook suggestive of being a "tick book", together with the sum of$5,000 in cash.[6] When the police searched the garage they found 95 cannabis seedlings growingin a purpose built cultivation area that had grow lights installed. In the boot of avehicle parked on the driveway at the address the police found 22 cannabis seedlings1 Police v Rangirangi [2023] NZDC 9935.in a yellow tub. They also found a bucket containing 130 cannabis seeds in the loungeof the address.The sentence[7] The Judge took a starting point of two years nine months imprisonment on allcharges. Mr Rangirangi does not take issue with the starting point.[8] The Judge then allowed a discount of seven months, or 20 per cent, to reflectguilty pleas. This produced the end sentence of two years two months imprisonment.The appeal[9] On Mr Rangirangi's behalf, Mr Hill contends the Judge ought to have alloweda full discount of 25 per cent to reflect Mr Rangirangi's guilty pleas. Mr Hill contendsthe Judge should also have applied a discount of around five per cent to reflect remorseexpressed by Mr Rangirangi in a letter he had written to the Judge on the day ofsentencing as well as his rehabilitation prospects. Reduction of the sentence to reflectthese factors would have reduced the sentence to the point where home detention wasa viable option.DecisionDiscount for guilty pleas[10] The Judge fixed the discount to be given for guilty pleas in the following way:[13] I do not agree with Mr Hill that you entered your guilty plea at thefirst opportunity. You pleaded not guilty, you went to a case review hearingand initially the matter was set down for a hearing, although you then pleadedguilty. I would extend close to the maximum discount of 20 per cent for thatplea.[11] Mr Rangirangi first appeared on the charges on 20 October 2022. His counselintimated guilty pleas and sought an adjournment to 3 November 2022. On 3November 2022 Mr Rangirangi entered not guilty pleas and elected trial before a Judgesitting without a jury. Over the next two months Mr Rangirangi's counsel entered intonegotiations with the police relating to possible resolution of the charges. The policedeclined to agree to a proposal involving the withdrawal of charges they had laidagainst Mr Rangirangi's son. The police also declined to resolve the charges on thebasis that Mr Rangirangi would plead guilty to one of the charges and his son wouldplead guilty to the remainder. In January 2023, once it became clear that these effortswere unlikely to be successful, Mr Rangirangi indicated that he intended to pleadguilty to the charges. He then entered his guilty pleas on 13 February 2023.[12] This series of events makes it clear that although Mr Rangirangi intimatedguilty pleas when the charges were first called he subsequently entered n pleas of notguilty and then endeavoured to persuade the police to withdraw some of the charges.Mr Rangirangi told the writer of the pre-sentence report that he expected his son toplead guilty to some of the charges and that he was surprised when he (Mr Rangirangi)was charged. This suggests Mr Rangirangi did not intend to plead guilty to the chargesfrom the outset.[13] Viewed against that backdrop, I am satisfied the Judge was not required to giveMr Rangirangi a greater discount than 20 per cent. This ground of appeal fails as aresult.Remorse and rehabilitative prospects[14] The pre-sentence report did not provide Mr Rangirangi with a great deal ofassistance in relation to these issues. It contained the following statement:No remorse or regret was able to identified and when prompted[Mr Rangirangi] superficially apologised to the Court.[15] Perhaps in response to this observation Mr Rangirangi provided a letter to theCourt on the day of sentencing in which he expressed remorse. However, I do notconsider this obliged the Judge to provide a discreet discount to reflect remorse. Itneeds to be considered in light of the impression he gave the writer of the pre-sentencereport. Mr Rangirangi's ability to seek a discount for remorse is also significantlyhampered by the fact that he has several previous convictions some years ago foroffending involving drugs. These go back to 1993 and the Judge rightly did not viewthem as an aggravating factor. However, they suggest it is now somewhat late in thepiece for Mr Rangirangi to express genuine and meaningful remorse.[16] Mr Hill also relies on the fact that Mr Rangirangi is now 61 years of age andappears to be well respected in his local community. Any credit to be given for thesefactors is nullified by the fact that he was prepared to deal in drugs in a significant wayin the same community.[17] Further, there is no suggestion that Mr Rangirangi has issues with addiction orother matters that require rehabilitative intervention. In the absence of anydemonstrated need for rehabilitation it is no surprise the Judge did not provide adiscount to reflect Mr Rangirangi's rehabilitative prospects.Result[18] The appeal against sentence is dismissed._________________________Lang J