Elizabeth Bolea has won a successful appeal against a conviction for gang-related activity in New Zealand, with the Supreme Court expressing concerns about potential family separation if deported.
The Supreme Court decision, released today, granted Bolea’s appeal, nullifying her conviction but opening the possibility of reconsidering her discharge without conviction application in the High Court, with additional evidence.
Bolea, who pleaded guilty to knowingly transporting her partner, a prospective gang member, and another individual from Auckland to Christchurch in a vehicle containing at least 500 grams of methamphetamine in 2020, faced four months’ home detention.
Her plea for discharge without conviction stemmed from fears that deportation to Australia, triggered by her conviction, would result in separation from her 501 deportee partner and their daughter, who was born while she was pregnant during her arrest.
As a holder of a resident visa Bolea faced potential deportation if convicted of an offense carrying a prison term of two years or more within five years of obtaining the visa. Despite her plea, the High Court initially rejected her discharge application, emphasising that deportation consequences were a result of her actions rather than the conviction itself. The Court of Appeal similarly dismissed her appeal last March.
However, the Supreme Court, following a hearing in October, has ruled in her favour due to the practical implications of family separation if she were deported. The family would face challenges in reuniting elsewhere, given both parents’ criminal records.
Bolea’s involvement in the offense occurred while she was in a relationship with Rhakim Mataia, a nominee of the Comancheros Motorcycle Club, who had been deported from Australia under migration laws several years ago. During the incident, Bolea, then 22 and pregnant, drove Mataia and another individual to Christchurch, where they intended to sell the methamphetamine.
Despite her role in the crime, the sentencing judge acknowledged mitigating factors, noting that Bolea acted under Mataia’s direction, received no personal gain, and had a limited involvement in the offense.
