Arlidge v Police - [2014] NZHC 2202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2014-425-24 [2014] NZHC 2202

BETWEEN
OSCAR JIMMY GOLD ARLIDGE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:
4 September 2014

(By way of audio visual link)

Appearances:

F E Guy Kidd for Appellant
S N McKenzie for Respondent

Judgment:

11 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] Oscar Arlidge appeals against a sentence of 2 years and 8 months imprisonment imposed on him in respect of drug dealing offences involving LSD, ecstasy and cannabis. It is submitted the sentence was manifestly excessive.

[2] A Police operation was conducted in the Wanaka area in the latter part of

2013. The appellant supplied an undercover police officer on three occasions with tabs of LSD for which he was paid a total sum of $3,620. On one of those occasions he supplied 100 tabs for $1,700. On another occasion he offered to supply a further
100 tabs of LSD, however on subsequent analysis these were found not to contain that substance. Mr Arlidge also supplied the undercover police officer with
3.5 grams of ecstasy for a price of $1,500, and made a further separate offer to supply that drug. Additionally, he offered to supply cannabis. To these charges, Mr Arlidge pleaded guilty.

[3] The appeal is brought on the basis that the starting point adopted in the

District Court was too high and that inadequate discount was given for mitigating

ARLIDGE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2202 [11 September 2014]

factors. It is submitted this resulted in an end sentence which was manifestly excessive.

Starting point

[4] The ground of appeal based on an excess starting point can quickly be disposed of. Judge Turner considered an appropriate starting point for the Class A dealing offences as being 4 years. To that he added a 7 month uplift for the Class B and C drug dealing offences. Mr Arlidge’s complaint focussed on Judge Turner’s assessment that the gravity of the offending was in the higher range when his offending was limited only to transactions with the undercover agent. The difficulty for Mr Arlidge however is that on a comprehensive review of applicable sentencing authorities, the appellant’s criticism distils to a submission that a starting point of no more than 4 years and 6 months was available. An argument based on the difference of 1 month between the starting point taken by the sentencing Judge and that contended for on appeal in relation to a sentence of such length is not attractive.

[5] In oral submission, Mr Arlidge focussed on a remark made by Judge Turner relating to his preparedness to supply further amounts of ecstasy beyond the
3.5 grams the subject of the supply charge. It was submitted that the Judge had misconstrued a statement made by Mr Arlidge in reference to the supply of cannabis. Having read the summary of facts, I am satisfied that the District Court Judge’s observation was one he was entitled to come to. In any event, little turns on…

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 Arlidge v Police

Details

AGLC: Arlidge v Police [2014] NZHC 2202
Case: [2014] NZHC 2202
Decision Date: 11 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Oscar Jimmy Gold Arlidge appeals against his sentence of 2 years and 8 months imprisonment for drug dealing offences involving LSD, ecstasy, and cannabis. He argues that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to an inappropriate starting point and inadequate discount for mitigating factors. The case was heard by Mander J in the High Court of New Zealand, Invercargill Registry.

The appeal centred on two main legal issues. The first was whether the starting point for sentencing was too high, and the second was whether the sentence imposed adequately reflected the mitigating factors presented by the appellant. The appellant argued that the District Court judge had erred in setting a starting point of 4 years for Class A drug dealing offences and in not sufficiently discounting the sentence for mitigating factors. These factors included the appellant's good character, voluntary community work, and efforts to overcome drug addiction through rehabilitation.

Mander J found that the starting point set by the District Court judge was within the range available to them, despite the appellant's arguments to the contrary. The judge also found that the District Court judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors in sentencing, including the appellant's good character, voluntary community work, and participation in a drug rehabilitation program. The judge acknowledged the appellant's efforts to overcome his drug addiction and his low risk of reoffending, but also emphasised the importance of deterrence and consistency in sentencing for drug dealing offences.

The court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentence available to the judge in the exercise of their sentencing discretion, despite the mitigating factors presented by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed.

The court made no further orders.

Orders