Anslow v Crown Law Office - [2016] NZHC 2596

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-419-000031 [2016] NZHC 2596

BETWEEN
CLIFFORD JOHN ANSLOW

Appellant

AND

CROWN LAW OFFICE Respondent

Hearing: 27 October 2016

Appearances:

T Sutcliffe for Appellant
J ETarrant for Respondent

Judgment:

31 October 2016

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 31 October 2016 at 4.00 pm
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date………………………..

ANSLOW v CROWN LAW OFFICE [2016] NZHC 2596 [31 October 2016]

Introduction

[1] Just after midnight on 25 July 2015 Clifford Anslow was arrested at a service station in Huntly and a search warrant executed on his vehicle. The police found
16.4 grams of methamphetamine, a second bag containing 0.164 grams of methamphetamine, scales, empty ziplock bags and $5,500 cash in a bag belonging to Mr Anslow’s passenger. Production orders previously obtained on Mr Anslow’s phone had disclosed evidence of dealing.

[2] Mr Anslow was charged with possessing 16.4 grams of methamphetamine for supply and with supplying between 12.25 and 19.8 grams of methamphetamine and offering to supply between 4 and 16 grams of methamphetamine in the period between March 2014 and January 2015. He pleaded guilty to all the charges.

[3] In sentencing Judge Burnett took a starting point of four years four months which she uplifted by eight months for previous drug offending.1 She allowed two months’ credit for Mr Anslow’s time on EM bail and a discount of 17 per cent for his guilty plea. The end result was a sentence of four years’ imprisonment. In addition, the Judge imposed a period of disqualification that would result in Mr Anslow having to re-sit his driver’s licence upon completion of his sentence.

[4] Mr Anslow appeals the term of imprisonment on the basis that it is manifestly excessive as a result of the Judge failing to give adequate credit for his guilty plea, remorse and efforts at rehabilitation. No issue is taken with the starting point, nor with the disqualification.

Discount for rehabilitative efforts

[5] The PAC report provided on sentencing referred to Mr Anslow’s serious methamphetamine addiction, his remorse and the steps he was taking to address his addiction. The report writer assessed Mr Anslow as likely to pose a low level of harm and at medium-low likelihood of re-offending if he could remain drug free and recommended home detention to allow strict monitoring over his rehabilitative progress over time.

1 In 2005 Mr Anslow was imprisoned for nine years with a minimum period of imprisonment of four years for possessing methamphetamine for supply.

[6] At sentencing Mr Sutcliffe, for Mr Anslow, produced two drug tests, both negative, dated 21 April and 12 May 2016, together with a letter of initial appointment with the Addictions Service at Wairau Hospital dated 26 April 2016. Mr Anslow was also able to provide numerous references testifying to his good character (apart from his drug offending). Finally, following the appeal hearing Mr Anslow’s counsel, Mr Sutcliffe, confirmed that Mr…

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 Anslow v Crown Law Office

Details

AGLC: Anslow v Crown Law Office [2016] NZHC 2596
Case: [2016] NZHC 2596
Decision Date: 31 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Anslow v Crown Law Office, the appellant, Clifford John Anslow, appealed his sentence of four years' imprisonment for drug-related offenses, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court heard arguments regarding the appropriate discount for Anslow's guilty plea and his efforts at rehabilitation. The starting point for sentencing was four years and four months, which the sentencing judge adjusted based on Anslow's previous drug offenses, time on electronic monitoring bail, and his guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of four years. Anslow contended that the discount for his guilty plea was insufficient and that the judge failed to adequately consider his rehabilitative efforts. The High Court found that the judge's consideration of the guilty plea discount was appropriate and that Anslow's rehabilitative efforts, while commendable, did not warrant a larger discount. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Orders