Adams v Police - [2023] NZHC 2389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2023-412-47

[2023] NZHC 2389

BETWEEN
TE-MAIPI ADAMS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZELAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 23 August 2023

Appearances:

S A Saunderson-Warner for Appellant C E R Power for Respondent

Judgment:

30 August 2023

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 August 2023 at 10.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

ADAMS v NEW ZELAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2389 [30 August 2023]

Introduction

[1] Te-Maipi Adams pleaded guilty to three charges of supplying a class C controlled drug to a person under 18,1 and two charges of supplying a class A drug.2

[2] He was sentenced in the District Court to two years and three months imprisonment.3 He appeals this sentence on the ground the starting point was too high, and so the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

Facts

[3] The victims in this matter did not know the appellant. Victim ‘R’ was 14 years old at the time of the offending and victim ‘C’ was 12 years old.

[4] At around 11am on Thursday 15 September 2022, victim R went to the appellant’s place, looking to use cannabis. Inside the property, the appellant placed a small amount of cannabis on spotting knives which he heated with a blowtorch. He then covered the knives with a home-made plastic funnel and both the defendant and R inhaled the smoke.

[5] Later on the same day, both victims went to the appellant’s property. They went with the appellant into his bedroom where he gave them a can of Woodstock alcohol to share. C had told the appellant she was 12 and the appellant replied that it was okay as long as she did not tell anyone. The appellant then prepared cannabis as before and gave each victim around three turns inhaling.

[6] The appellant then went to a liquor store and obtained alcohol. Once he returned, he encouraged both victims to drink straight vodka and held the bottle up while they were drinking.

[7] The appellant then offered to supply the victims methamphetamine. Using a straw, he placed a small quantity of the powder into a glass pipe. He then demonstrated to the victims how to smoke the methamphetamine. He held the pipe to the victims’

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(d) and (2) – maximum penalty: eight years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 6(1)(c) and (2) – maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
3      New Zealand Police v Adams [2023] NZDC 12689.

mouths and applied the flame, causing them to inhale the smoke. He did this for both victims a number of times. R was holding C’s hand while she inhaled the methamphetamine. When they were done, the appellant placed the end of the straw into the bag and into victim C’s mouth, telling her to suck out the powder. The victims were then given more alcohol.

[8] At around 5pm, the victims made an…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adams v Police

Details

AGLC: Adams v Police [2023] NZHC 2389
Case: [2023] NZHC 2389
Decision Date: 30 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Adams v Police, Te-Maipi Adams appealed his sentence for supplying controlled substances to two underage individuals. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether the District Court's sentence was excessive. The court was required to consider whether the starting point of three years was too high and if the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court noted that while the quantity of methamphetamine was small, the culpability was significant due to the age and vulnerability of the victims. The court held that a starting point of two to two and a half years was appropriate to reflect the youth of the victims, the aggravating factor of supplying alcohol, and the harm caused. Regarding the six-month uplift for the cannabis-related offending, the court found that a three-month uplift would have been adequate. However, the court concluded that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive, as the uplift for prior convictions and the discount for the guilty plea were within the sentencing Judge's discretion. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal, upholding the District Court's sentence.

Orders